Some Thoughts on the 'Push Presents' Now Expected From Expectant Fathers (Part I)
December 17th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
From A Bundle of Joy Isn’t Enough? (New York Times, 12/6/07):
"WHEN Jena Slosberg of Bedford, N.H., gave birth in March, she endured a labor that lasted 17 hours. But her discomfort was ultimately worth it, quite apart from the arrival of her daughter, Marin. In the recovery room, her husband, Paul, presented her with a pair of diamond earrings.
"'I was on cloud nine,' Ms. Slosberg said. 'It was the perfect present to make a frazzled, sleep-deprived, first-time mommy feel absolutely glamorous.'
"She added, 'I wonder what 17 hours of labor will get me next time?'
"In a more innocent age, new mothers generally considered their babies to be the greatest gift imaginable. Today, they are likely to want some sort of tangible bonus as well.
"This bonus goes by various names. Some call it the 'baby mama gift.' Others refer to it as the 'baby bauble.' But it’s most popularly known as the 'push present.'
"That’s 'push' as in, 'I the mother, having been through the wringer and pushed out this blessed event, hereby claim my reward.' Or 'push' as in, 'I’ve delivered something special and now I’m pushing you, my husband/boyfriend, to follow suit.'
“It’s more and more an expectation of moms these days that they deserve something...Push presents seem to have taken off within the last decade, particularly in the last couple of years. In 2005 the Southeast-based jewelry chain Mayors marketed diamond earrings with the tag line, 'She delivered your first born; now give her twins.' Fortunoff, the jewelry and gift chain with a Fifth Avenue flagship, established a push present registry six months ago'...
"Michael Toback, a jewelry supplier in Manhattan’s diamond district, traces the practice to a new posture of assertiveness by women. "You know, 'Honey, you wanted this child as much as I did. So I want this [push present],"' he said..."
A few thoughts:
1) If this gift is about love, if it is about a man wanting to give his wife something special to show his appreciation, then I'm 100% for it.
2) If instead the gift is yet one more obligation, another example of why she has it so hard and he has it so easy, why he could never understand how much she suffers, why she's good and he's bad, and dammit isn't it the least he could do for her, well, then count me out. Men already have to deal with way too much minimization of their contributions to their families, along with exaggeration of women's contributions. In this particular instance, of course, the woman's contribution is tremendous. In most cases, it is no more (and no less) than the man's contribution.
To learn more about men and women's relative contributions to their families, see my co-authored column Are American Husbands Slackers? (Tallahassee Democrat, 3/22/06).
"));
19 queries. 0.594 seconds.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
It's simple glenn:
It will start with #1. A few men will do it out of their own self-castration and self-hate that drives them to reward a woman for everything she can do. Much like the "buy her a diamond to thank her for choosing your worthless male self as a relationship partner" commercials which are now running.
After a while, it will turn into #2, where women are wondering why he doesn't "love me enough" or even "love our child enough" to give her a push present. Women will give other women grief for 'allowing' her husband/partner for being so insert excuse as to not buy her one. Women will put pressure on the partners of men so that the partner will pressure her man to 'behave' and keep the entitlement process alive.
Much like women do now with diamond engagement rings. Oh the stories I could tell about my wife and the comments she got about "accepting" an engagement without a diamond.... and what I've said to some of those women in return.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
...what a great new way for jewelry stores to sell more jewelry. Get everybody hooked into this new "tradition."
December 17th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
But you don't understand, Glenn, that's all men are good for -- sperm and paying for things.
And WE objectify THEM? The fact of the matter is, women subject men to what I call "porcine objectification": to them, we are either pigs or piggy banks.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
I agree with Glenn. I think it's a very kind and laudable thing for a man to do, and I certainly think it is great for a man to try to appreciate the effort that goes into pregnancy and childbirth. But as an "obligation," it is potentially damaging. I can say this from my own experience: the mindset whereby women evaluate their relationships with men primarily by comparing them to other peoples' relationships is a dangerous one.
Overall, I really do not think it is a good idea for society to dictate standards in these personal matters. I think it leads to a "one size fits all" concept of marriage that prevents people from really examining what marriage means to them. I might even go so far as to wonder whether that type of thinking helps lead to the high divorce rate in this country.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Push as in, she'll push the father out the door, because she wants to be number one in the child's life.
If you get her a ring, it may not be big enough, or clear enough, or.... She can invent any excuse she wants.
There's nothing you can do about it. She can take your children and make you pay her money - lots. The feminists and the lawyers want it this way.
At this time in history, few are truly married. Marriage is no longer an institution. This is a result of "no fault" divorce.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
I should add that when my daughter was born, my husband gave me the wonderful "present" of walking the hospital hallways with her at 3 am when she would not go to sleep. It was one of my fondest memories from the whole experience --- seeing the tiny bundle on his big shoulder and listening to the song he made up to sing to her that first night. :)
December 17th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Funny, we talked about this over at Feministing [it's an old post, so I wouldn't expect a response if you post there] (http://feministing.com/archives/008209.html), and the feeling was almost exactly the same. Nice if it's out of love... horrible if it's an obligation. From my understanding, it isn't exactly a NEW tradition- it's more European than American? My interpretation of the NYT article is a bunch of people sitting around, one says "hey, did you hear so and so got a PUSH present?" and the idea was then born out story-wise, as if it's a new, big phenomenon.
My husband got me a beautiful, modest bracelet when our daughter was born. He got a Baby Daddy gift of a digital picture frame. It's a little tradition, and the bracelet will go to daughter dearest when she has a big life event. It was sweet, and I loved the jewelry aspect because I could wear it right there in the hospital and when he couldn't be there, there it was. But the sentiment was right.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
I agree with Glenn. I think it's a very kind and laudable thing for a man to do, and I certainly think it is great for a man to try to appreciate the effort that goes into pregnancy and childbirth.
It is laudable for a man to appreciate the effort that goes into pregnancy and childbirth, but to appreciate it with a gift that is largely monetary in value smacks of a relationship where the man is 'buying' time with the woman and 'buying' her affection. What man would buy a woman's time if not for the societal belief that she is "god" and he is worthless both due to gender?
But as for walking the halls with the baby and giving you some rest? That's the way it should be done, and much kudos to him.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Michael said: The feminists and the lawyers want it this way.
Yeah, except like I posted above, the feminists ain't so keen. Seriously, if we agree on something, maybe we can get angry about concepts in general and lose the "versus" mentality, no? Keep beating the "the feminists wymnns hate us!" drum and the real point gets LOST.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
"I might even go so far as to wonder whether that type of thinking helps lead to the high divorce rate in this country."
Women initiate at least two-thirds of divorce, especially in a marriage with children, and while financial opportunity, reproductive opportunity, and the desire to be number one in the children's lives may all play a role, any excuse for ending a marriage can be created in an individual's mind.
No-fault divorce is an abomination.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Demonspawn said: but to appreciate it with a gift that is largely monetary in value smacks of a relationship where the man is 'buying' time with the woman and 'buying' her affection.
So... no gifts? Ever? Because my buying my mom a mother's day gift could smack of me OWING her for giving me life, me buying my daughter a present could smack of me "owing her" for being my child... Gifts are not evil. Gifts are also not gifts if they are *expected*
Gift: 1. Something that is bestowed voluntarily and without compensation.
2. The act, right, or power of giving.
3. A talent, endowment, aptitude, or inclination.
Expected = evil. Gifts? Are beautiful.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
For the most part Glenn, you actually agree with Amanda, Feministing, and Majikthise.
Luckily, they are all able to blame men for this predicament, as opposed to blaming the same assholes at marketing agencies that brought us commercials that overly sexualize and ditzify women, commercials that bash men, and companies that sexualize our kids. The Patriarchy is to blame for that, regardless of the huge numbers of women that go into communications, marketing, and graphic arts in college.
(The modern mainstream feminists seem to mostly right about the diamond ripoff, how madison avenue foisted that on the world. As I think you have noted in your own words it's a pity they refuse to work with fathers to solve problems.)
December 17th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Another feminist site not too keen on the present idea:
http://herhistory.org/2007/12/07/nytimes-catering-to-an-upper-middle-class-audienceyes/
December 17th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
"Keep beating the "the feminists wymnns hate us!" drum and the real point gets LOST."
I never mentioned women and I never mentioned hate. I understand that feminists support no-fault divorce. If I am wrong, I would be happy to agree with them.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
@ Michael: so saying that women push men out the door, that they can take your kids and not care and that she can invent any excuse... you're not saying women are bad???
December 17th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Ya know, this one is mixed for me.
On one hand, I see it like (some) women wanting an advance bonus 4 years ahead of the pending divorce where they really cash in. That doesn't really apply where it is not a gift that has monetary value, but is rather of emotional value. It is also undoubtably cynical and jaded.
On the other hand, I think that in the evolving situation of equal education, equal pay, equal responsibility for women, and hopefully (only) equal divorce rights, then some sort of compensation to the woman for enduring 9 months of mild to severe discomfort followed by a wracking physical event, the equivalent of running a marathon for the first time in many cases. I really don't mind the gift as as a symbol that the man does recognise and appreciate the magnitude of the burden and discomfort. ie, It is a good thing.
And then there is the year of breastfeeding for concientious moms. How many hours and hours is that? Do we have a name for that? "Boob Bundle"? When do you present it? Like every Saturday night with a movie out and dancing?
December 17th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Agree with Melissa, and the femninsts on this. It goes to another gender stereotype that is not healthy for either gender. When gifts are expected, and gift-giving occassions are institutionalized, it is usually the man who is expected to be Santa Claus and the woman is the gold-digger. That is wrong on both counts. In that twisted world, women's gifts are extravagant and personal and if the man DARES to buy her something practical, he'd better run. Men's gifts, on the other hand, are often practical -- tools to help him fix things around the house and so forth.
We are all in agreement on this, I think, that it is just another gender stereotype that doesn't really engender love and affection.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
@ Michael: so saying that women push men out the door, that they can take your kids and not care and that she can invent any excuse... you're not saying women are bad???
Women are not bad. Do you think that women's ability to push men out the door so that they can be number one in their children's lives based on ANY invented excuse is good?
December 17th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
jerry said: Luckily, they are all able to blame men for this predicament, as opposed to blaming the same assholes at marketing agencies that brought us commercials that overly sexualize and ditzify women, commercials that bash men, and companies that sexualize our kids.
For real? That's what you think? The first time I posted here, where I listed some commercials that my favorite website, feministing, had problems with, I was told we worry too much about that sort of thing (paraphrasing). In fact, I think we spend too much time sometimes trying to find things wrong with the overtly sexual commercialization of things (Sarah Connors Chronicles posters) but yeah, pretty sure the conversation is largely around how bad it is to impose stereotypical materialistic standards on people through media. If the feminist sites don't spend a lot of time talking about men's issues, it's because they are women's issue sites, generally.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Stephen said: and then there is the year of breastfeeding for concientious moms. How many hours and hours is that? Do we have a name for that? "Boob Bundle"? When do you present it? Like every Saturday night with a movie out and dancing?
Oh :) I love it. Boob Bundle. Yeah... I would have liked one of those after 11 months :).
December 17th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
This is funny because I was just teasing my brother because he bought a Coach diaper bag, and matching purse a couple of weeks ago when she had their 4th kid. It goes well with her Rolex. That is all fine and dandy, but we are in the real Estate business in Florida, and he is always complaining about being broke. He does everything he can to keep her happy, and that is great, but he complains to me constantly. He knows if she left him she, (and the system) would stick it to him. But to her it is all about the material things. Not celebrating being a new parent.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Bill said: But to her it is all about the material things. Not celebrating being a new parent.
Well, she sounds like she sucks. Can I ask... why are they having a fourth kid???
December 17th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Melissa, I apologize as I'm busy and can't give your question the time I would like to, and I'm not sure who is who (or who is we in your post.)
About a year or two ago, Glenn started a campaign against a particularly obnoxious commercial or product, I forget the details. At the exact same time, over at Feministing (the one where Jessica Valenti and Ann Friedman, now of ThinkProgress posts) they posted a complaint about some commercials offensive to women.
I emailed all three (I emailed Jessica and Ann twice each) and commented in the blog here and there (at least twice in the blog) suggesting there was a lot of commonality in the complaints and perhaps the two groups could work together.
Glenn responded back to me. Neither Valenti nor Friedman did. Later on, I was chastised at other feminist blogs for even suggesting the possibility.
Now me personally, I often find almost all of those commercials, the ones that bash men and the ones that bash women to be funny. What I find obnoxious is the cliche and preponderance of the same memes, and the overwhelming frequency of some of the memes. I like to think I am a pretty hardcore free speech advocate and think that the feminists in many ways are going at this all wrong, and sometimes too, so does Glenn. But I do think that outreach and teaching moments are important and useful, and I think a campaign led my feminists and fathers could have been really important. (For an example, see Glenn's recent series about the ads that NOW finds offensive. Many of them if not most of them are not really offensive at all.)
The only products and commercials that really piss me off to the point of regulating them are the ones that overtly sexualize young children, especially young girls.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
jerry: I'm not certain that the complaint about not getting a response holds a lot of weight. Read the comments posted here- why would a feminist website want to join forces on SOME issues when even Glenn makes backhanded comments about what "feminists must think" in his blogs (force me to and I'll find posts but I'm supposed to be working).
That's not to say there aren't issues to be discussed, that are similar in nature. And it would do both groups a world of good to attack them in a "this is bad for HUMANS" kind of way. Sure. But a feminist website is, by definition, interested in tackling feminist issues with that perspective- as an MRA website is interested in the same for MRA issues. So to say that bloggers should refocus their issues to make them more centrist isn't exactly realistic, IMO.
Let's say it this way- if you expect feminists not to blame men for ills (and I think that is a gross oversimplification of the feminist thought) then why is it strange to expect MRA's to do the same in reverse? Notice over at feministing, the e-mailed messages filled with hate- clean up the cuss words, include the "fraud!" and "liars!" language and they aren't that different from some posts here. It's not exactly an even playing field of love and togetherness.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
@ Michael: so saying that women push men out the door, that they can take your kids and not care and that she can invent any excuse... you're not saying women are bad???
Women are not bad. Do you think that women's ability to push men out the door so that they can be number one in their children's lives based on ANY invented excuse is good?
"That's not to say there aren't issues to be discussed, that are similar in nature. And it would do both groups a world of good to attack them in a "this is bad for HUMANS" kind of way. "
I agree. No-fault divorce is bad for women as well as men, but it's especially bad for children.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
How bout a nice sports watch from the ex when the father finally finishes paying off his support obligations? Or maybe a framed picture of his kids? That would be fair.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Actually Melissa Glenn has stated whenever he agrees with the feminist majority position. He has even extended invitations to work together with them on various issues, with NO response.
The problem is, while both will agree that something like the feminisation of Dora the Explorer doll is wrong. Glenn will blame marketing companies, who are actually responsible. Marcotte et al will blame men/the patriarchy/a giant conspiracy to oppress women. That is the main point of contention.
December 17th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Callum: the Marketing Companies are always responsible? Because there isn't a societal push for what they sell? No one buys it? There aren't (wrong) ideas about women and men that support the marketing? I think the difference is saying "this ONE THING is bad" and saying "we need to change the way society looks at gender issues". I personally would rather err on the "let's change the system" side than start a fruitless letter campaign.
December 17th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
That's not to say there aren't issues to be discussed, that are similar in nature. And it would do both groups a world of good to attack them in a "this is bad for HUMANS" kind of way. Sure. But a feminist website is, by definition, interested in tackling feminist issues with that perspective- as an MRA website is interested in the same for MRA issues. So to say that bloggers should refocus their issues to make them more centrist isn't exactly realistic, IMO.
I'm curious to your take on Israel and the Palestinians, the Irish vs. the English, the North vs. the South, Taiwan vs. Mainland China, ....
You make feminist sites and even FRA sites out to be ideologically opposed to everything, and you make them each out as bureaucracies interested in their own survival as a bureaucracy and a website as opposed to a group of people that in a sense is interested in advancing society to a place where their websites are no longer needed.
Or as I think Rabin once said about the Palestinians and Arabs, yes, I will talk to them, because talking to only people I agree with doesn't get anyone anywhere. (Probably not Rabin, but either an Israeli talking about peace, or an American talking about peace with China or the Soviets.)
So it's not a question of abandoning some feminist perspective or framework as much as it is working to find common causes and seek common solutions and see what that can do. If as that activity continues, sites and people learn more about each other and change their opinions and policies, so nu? That's such a bad thing?
(And try and resist, I can't. If you think that Glenn is bad in stating what feminists must think, I wonder what you think of all the posts at Shakesville and Pandagon et. al., that commonly state what FRAs must think and why they do certain things, and how we are all wife abusers, rapists, pedophiles who mostly just want to stop paying child support.)
December 17th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Society is to blame the problem is feminists define society as a "patriarchy". Which is to say it is men who control everything. And then it comes down to "we must get men to treat women as human beings". Of course the question of how well women and society treat men is never considered as that's a "what about the menz" argument.
December 17th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
It should be obvious to all who visit this blog that once a woman has "reproduced" with a man's sperm in America, the man is at her mercy, lest she decide to invoke her inalienable right to gut him financially, which she can do at any moment with the help of America's family courts.
This does not mean that any particular woman would do that to her husband, but certainly any man with an IQ above the level of a frog understands the greater-than-50% probability that this is what will happen to him once she has the child she has "always dreamed of".
Answer: If you are a man, do not reproduce in America unless you are also an illegal immigrant -- in that case you can actually threaten to leave the U.S. , which threat gives a little "balance of power" in your relationship with the mother of your child.
But if you are a man who is a U.S. citizen, how in the world can you ever feel safe having a child in this country?
By hoping you met Miss Right?
Well, I hope for your sake Miss Right never gets post-partum depression, or gets bored, or decides that her lack of general satisfaction with her life must be somebody else's fault -- like yours.
December 17th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
leta, that's a nice and concise statement of the problem.
December 17th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Oh god. Seriously:
Well, I hope for your sake Miss Right never gets post-partum depression, or gets bored, or decides that her lack of general satisfaction with her life must be somebody else's fault -- like yours.
So now PPD is a woman's FAULT!?! And you wonder why you can't be taken seriously. Jesus.
December 17th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
I used to think, "what could be wrong with no-fault divorce?" Why should a couple HAVE to stay together if they didn't want to? I was quite naive.
The name no-fault divorce is not very informative is it. I wonder why lawyers chose a name from auto insurance for what was to become a revolutionary change in the law.
No-fault divorce is not mutual agreement divorce; it is unilateral divorce. It's not good for men, women and especially children.
I have nothing against feminists, and I believe strongly that some feminists have brought good into this world. However, it is my understanding that feminists generally are opposed to a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting and they support no-fault divorce.
I would be happy to join them in their efforts for change, but shared parenting and no-fault divorce are important issues for me.
December 17th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
jerry: it's not so very concise, because it puts words into someone's mouth... saying I mean patriarchy when I say society is BS. I mean society. I seriously have run across the word patriarchy more in my limited time here than anywhere else. And I don't want to get in the revisionist-history debate since we've done it before. All I'm saying is, you cannot blame a site that is focused on women's rights for focusing on them more than other issues. How many MRA sites are dedicated to saving Darfur? Stupid question? Absolutely.
December 17th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Melissa i was referring to feminist sites and communities as a whole. Sites like feministing and such.
December 17th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
A majority of feminist website communities in my opinion are of the belief that "feminism" is about equality but must focus on women because women are "oppressed".
You are of the opinion that feminism is about equality but focusing on the female side only?
Is this wrong? Could you explain your beliefs?
December 17th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Melissa, I completely agree that such things as driven by the market. The biggest problem I often find is people believing in some sort of media conspiracy. I think that unless something is actually offensive, it is futile to try and persuade marketing companies otherwise.
You consider a letter campaign fruitless yet consider that changing millions of years of human evolutionary history (in the case of things like Barbie dolls) is a better idea? It is easy to get a company to remove an offensive, sexist advert. It is not easy to change the attitudes of millions of men and women who think that degradation of men is acceptable.
December 17th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Unfair gender stereotyping is the issue common to men and women and to feminists and men's rights advocates. Such stereotyping unfairly affects one or the other or both in varying ways depending on the issue. What IS bad is when a site pretends the gender it doesn't cater to has NO gender-specific problems that are not of its gender's own creation. Web sites with this attitude -- on both sides -- lack credibility and are marginalized. Sadly, those Web site editors are content to speak to the choir and expressly or, more often, implicitly portray the other gender as the devil. Any movement can mobilize the troops more easily by having a devil. It is sad when radical feminist sites or radical MRA sites make the other gender, and implicitly all its members, the devil.
Glenn doesn't do that. He "gets" it and often writes about issues that negatively impact women. When he does this, he's often greeted with disapproval from some of the men reading this board.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Especially with respect to shared parenting, my values are more aligned with Karen DeCrow (former President of NOW) than are the values of most current feminists.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Ieta said: You are of the opinion that feminism is about equality but focusing on the female side only?
Pretty much. I wouldn't use the definitive ONLY but, yes, it is about equality, but a focus on the female side of equality. Is MRA's focus on women being equal? Or equality with a focus on the male side?
December 17th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Oh, for pete's sake! As if men these days need any more reasons to think poorly of women. This is like the ridiculous whining that women's domestic services are worth over $100,000 per year. It also sends a clear message that the newborn itself is not the greatest gift the woman could receive from the father. Nice. They have a word for women who expect compensation for everything they provide to a man, don't they? Once something is expected, it is no longer a gift, is it? Why not just cut the new mom a check and have done with it.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Melissa,
I don't know why they had a fourth kid. Some people have kids to keep up with or surpass the Joneses.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
If feminism is about equality, why are equity feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers, Wendy McElroy, Cathy Young, et. al., called anti-feminists by so many "modern mainstream feminists"?
December 17th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
It seems to me that when current feminists support no-fault divorce and oppose shared parenting, they are acting to protect perceived advantages for women rather than acting to support equality. They certainly are acting against the best interest of children.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Melissa: "So now PPD is a woman's FAULT!?! And you wonder why you can't be taken seriously. Jesus."
I believe AP's point was there is a pervasive tendency for women to blame men for all their problems and the assumption of male-guilt associated with all (most) divorces. If you believe that PPD is not the woman's fault, then surly you don't think that it is the man's fault either?
Another aspect that probably bothers AP: if a woman kills her baby she is suffering from PPD and should therefore get a free pass. If a man kills his baby, he is a monster (never mind that often men feel very similar feelings associated with the addition of a new member of the family).
December 17th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Melissa: "But a feminist website is, by definition, interested in tackling feminist issues with that perspective- as an MRA website is interested in the same for MRA issues."
Finally! Yes, exactly. One of the biggest complaints I hear from feminists concerning the men's rights movement is this perverse belief on the part of feminists that they truly have the best interests of society - including men - at heart and that they would never demand more rights then men already have - therefore the MRM shouldn't exist. Further, any complaints that men have are far overshadowed by the wrongs done to women so why should they (feminists) ever consider the significance of the problems of men - therefore the MRM shouldn't exist You just underscored why: "a FEMinist website [and by extension the movement] is, by definition, interested in tackling FEMinist issues with that perspective." By definition, feminism will fight for the rights of women at all costs - it is their imperative. Therefore, masculinism should exist to make sure that the rights of men are likewise fought for and preserved - it is their imperative.
Hence why many equalists find both "feminism" and "masculinism" to be counter productive to true gender egalitarianism. By definition, each are only interested in tackling the issues of their own gender with general disregard to true equality.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Melissa-
I think you missed an important qualifier in my statement to which you replied:
Demonspawn said: but to appreciate it with a gift that is largely monetary in value smacks of a relationship where the man is 'buying' time with the woman and 'buying' her affection.
There is nothing wrong at all with gifts. There is plenty wrong in gifts which value is to say, "I spent $ on you".
December 17th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Lance: By definition, feminism will fight for the rights of women at all costs - it is their imperative.
You had me up until then. Because that isn't true, IMO, or in my experience. Not rights of women At All Costs. Equal Rights for Women doesn't mean "take rights away." By DEFINITION it means... Equal. On the same level. Not one above another. It can't be equal if it's women's rights at all costs because... that ain't equal.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Excellent point Jerry...What is unfortunate is being painted as "anti-feminist" seems to be derogatory, while in reality you could be a masculinist or even better, an equalist. In effect, to answer your comment: saying someone is an "anti-feminist" ends debate through name calling. If you don't buy into a particular form of feminism (patriarchy and all), then you must be an anti-feminist and therefore you are (1) anti-woman and (2) sub-human when in fact, very few men in the masculinist movement are "anti-woman" or want women to "return to the kitchen" or anything of the sort. They just want the same equality that women want and have.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Demonspawn, well, yes, but that means no gifts should be high in monetary value- that the cost of the gift actually cheapens it?
If you're rich and you give really expensive gifts, kudos. If you're poor and you save for years to buy one expensive gift, kudos to you. It's sentiment, not value.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Jerry: I don't know. We're not the Borg with collective thoughts.
Michael H: I think if I had any idea the concept behind no-fault divorce, the legal ramifications of it or if I had EVER in my life heard it discussed in a feminist setting, I would be able to respond to your repeated comments. Sadly, I cannot.
Lance said: there is a pervasive tendency for women to blame men for all their problems...If a man kills his baby, he is a monster
Mentally ill is mentally ill. My husband's mother's cousin (could I be more obscure, I know) killed his infant son because he tried to quiet him down- he's mentally ill, and nothing legally happened to him. It was just horribly sad. And I think there is a "pervasive tendency" to have men THINK women blame them for "all their problems". It's not exactly a feminist position to pass issues off on any one person or gender, IMO.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
"Equal Rights for Women doesn't mean "take rights away." By DEFINITION it means... Equal. "
Do they support equal rights for parents, even fathers? No.
Today, women are able to use up more than one man and this pits women against each other for the support and campanionship of fewer and more reluctant men, yet current feminists claim to support equal rights for women.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
If you're rich and you give really expensive gifts, kudos. If you're poor and you save for years to buy one expensive gift, kudos to you. It's sentiment, not value.
Yes, if you happen to know that your SO absolutely adores heart shaped rubies and you have the means to give her such a gift, and you are doing it as a gift... that's one thing.
But when it's a matter of "well I guess women like diamonds" and present a gift with little thought other than "it's expensive so she should like me for that", then yes it is a matter of de-facto prostitution.
It's the thought that goes into a gift, the understanding of your SO and their likes/desires that makes a gift more of a presentation of affection and less of trading of valuable objects for affection.
that the cost of the gift actually cheapens it?
It's that if the value of the gift is mostly monetary, if the value is in the cost, that cheapens it.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Michael H said: Do they support equal rights for parents, even fathers? No.
Seriously... give me links to feminist sites that are against equal rights for parents and I will consider myself schooled. And disappointed in that site.
Michael H said: Today, women are able to use up more than one man
What does this even MEAN!?!? Seriously?!? If I dated more than one guy but only married one, am I not using my ability to "use up" the menz like I should be, or is my "rampant dating" a problem?! What if I only SLEPT with my husband, and never any other guy, is that weird or something? Is it whorish if that's not the case? If people get divorced it's always a woman's choosing / doing / fault?
December 17th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
No-fault divorce means that men and women are able to push the other parent out the door for any private reason (e.g. so that they can be number one in their children's lives) based on ANY invented excuse.
Although it was first developed in the Soviet Union, in his most recent book, Dr. Baskerville reported that some feminist groups declared their support for no-fault divorce in the 1940's.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
"If feminism is about equality, why are equity feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers, Wendy McElroy, Cathy Young, et. al., called anti-feminists by so many "modern mainstream feminists"?"
Because Cathy Young and Christina and Christina Hoff Sommers ARE antifeminists, and Wendy McElroy associates with those who are (though she really is a feminist; so much for feminism not being a purist movement).
December 17th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Melissa that would be true if feminists were consistent though because there are times when men ask for "equality" and are actively opposed by feminists. Assumption of shared custody, equal access to domestic violence shelters and equal sentencing for crime in the criminal system.
Equality argument appear to only be valid for most feminists when the inequality favours men. When women have advantage in the same area 20 years later all of a sudden the argument for equality isn't good enough like in education.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Demonspawn said: But when it's a matter of "well I guess women like diamonds" and present a gift with little thought other than "it's expensive so she should like me for that", then yes it is a matter of de-facto prostitution.
So... even if a woman doesn't ask for it, and a man assumes she'll like it because some media campaign told him all women do, it's prostitution? Where's a little responsibility for saying "I won't buy what I can't afford" or "I will only buy something that is meaningful" on the guy's part?
December 17th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
N.O.W. california actively campaigns against the assumption of shared custody.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Melissa L.,
"Equal Rights for Women doesn't mean "take rights away." By DEFINITION it means... Equal. On the same level. Not one above another. It can't be equal if it's women's rights at all costs because... that ain't equal."
EXACTLY! Thank you for stating so well and succintly why feminism is NOT about equality, neither by definition, nor in practice. It has been all about giving privilege to women, and taking basic rights from men. This is why any "feminist," after a moment of reflection and realization, should immediately start apologizing to the rest of us for all the supremacist gender hatred for which they are responsible. So long as "feminism" in any form has influence, men have no choice but to view women as potential enemies who are happy to see some pigs (sows?) be "more equal" than others, and thus have no choice but to protect themselves.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Right now, women are financially rewarded more child support for having children with more than one man.
A man, who has his children taken away from him and who is paying generous child support, literally through no fault of his own, is not available for other women.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Michael H: I think that a feminist position on no-fault divorce is more so you don't have to stay with someone you despise just because they didn't do anything legally actionable. You really think that you should be forced to stay married if you don't like a person until someone does something "wrong" and therefor doesn't get the kids? That's silly to me.
You are not going to get me to say I think that the laws are particularly fair for fathers right now- I know they aren't and if you ask me to vote for change, sign a petition, well, yeah- my husband is about as equal a parent as you can get and he's no m ore or less valuable to my daughter than I am. I would venture to say MOST parents are like that. But I don't think making it more difficult to get a divorce is particularly wise.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Women are generally good. They want to have children.
Current feminists have hurt women's ability to find men who are willing to have children.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Ieta, I won't argue you your point, but I wonder why a google search comes up with this:
http://www.cspaonline.org/
According to Karen DeCrow, former president of the National Organization for Women:
"If there is a divorce in the family, I urge a presumption of joint custody of the children. Shared parenting is not only fair to men and children, it is the best option for women. After observing women's rights and responsibilities for more than a quarter of a century of feminist activism, I conclude that shared parenting is great for women, giving time and opportunity for female parents to pursue education, training, jobs, careers, profession and leisure. There is nothing scientific, logical or rational in excluding men or forever holding women and children as if in swaddling clothes in an eternally loving bondage. Most of us have acknowledged that women can do everything that men can do. It is time now for us to acknowledge that men can do everything women can do."
So... maybe some feminists but not all? Like I said, we're not the Borg.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Jay R Says: EXACTLY! Thank you for stating so well and succintly why feminism is NOT about equality
Except, I didn't do that, don't put words in my mouth, I stated the opposite and I stand by it. Your interpretation of that is whatever you want it to be, but don't go twisting my words.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
"Women are generally good. They want to have children."
Unlike teh bitches who aren't itching to pop a few out. They can't possibly also be good people.
"Current feminists have hurt women's ability to find men who are willing to have children."
I keep hearing this, but where is the evidence of any kind of large-scale men's marriage or babymaking strike? I doubt men are any less likely to want to marry and have children than women are.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
So... even if a woman doesn't ask for it, and a man assumes she'll like it because some media campaign told him all women do, it's prostitution? Where's a little responsibility for saying "I won't buy what I can't afford" or "I will only buy something that is meaningful" on the guy's part?
She accepts it, doesn't she? Her acceptance of the gift is what completes the trade.
Men will shower women with 'gifts' (diamonds, free drinks, whatever) in hopes of being with them initially or maintaining a relationship that is based on gift giving.. Women with integrity refuse such offers because, yes, it does make them a de-facto prostitute. The only difference between a woman who accepts such gifts and a prostitute is that the prostitute has the honesty to offer up-front pricing.
If a woman does not wish to be a de-facto prostitute, then she simply need not accept 'payment' for an act she may or may not perform. She need simply remove herself from a relationship where her interest in him is based primarily on what he spends on her.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Melissa: "Equal Rights for Women doesn't mean "take rights away.""
I think that is debatable - modern feminism is far from egalitarian. See ifeminism.net for Wendy's thoughts on how one-sided modern feminism has become. But moving on, if that is you define feminism (as defined in the dictionary), compare your definition to the policies of NOW. You will quickly realize how anti-feminist NOW really is even through mainstream feminism seems to see NOW as the bastion of feminism. For instance, they do not support the presumption of shared parenting. They have stated as much. They will not accept that DV is not a gender issue regardless of the peer-reviewed articles to the contrary (instead they use DV for fear mongering). Their concerns are not "equality" but "women's issues." Granted, that makes sense: they are the National Organization of WOMEN. But then if "feminism" is really about "equality" and their first concern is women, does it make sense that they are seen as such a bastion?
A great example is the fact that they no longer support the ERA as it was intended. Here is my favorite addition they want to see: "This article does not preclude any law, program or activity that would remedy the effects of discrimination and that is closely related to achieving such remedial purpose;" (see http://www.now.org/organization/conference/1995/resoluti.html#ERA for more).
With this clause they have provided a built in back door for pro-female legislation since by feminist-revisionist history, only women were oppressed by gender while men were oppressed by class. I know you don't buy this, but it is clearly bunk: both genders were oppressed by their gender roles just in very different ways. Incidentally, do you realize that NOW is against the addition of original-ERA principles in state constitutions? Why? Because the original-ERA did not have this backdoor.
Melissa: "It can't be equal if it's women's rights at all costs because... that ain't equal."
Agreed. That's why the term FEMinism is an inherently sexist term. Feminism as it was intended - and as you believe it still is - has been hijacked by anti-feminist women and chivalrous men to provide women with comfort and protection. Modern feminism has become "woman's rights at all costs"...hence why you see folks like us pushing back.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
You really think that you should be forced to stay married if you don't like a person until someone does something "wrong" and therefor doesn't get the kids? That's silly to me.
No one is forced to stay married. If a person wants to initiate the end of the marriage, then that person must negotiate its end. That person must NOT use the courts and the force of government to take more than half custody away from a fit parent.
"You are not going to get me to say I think that the laws are particularly fair for fathers right now"
I'm glad to read that you respect your husband as an equal parent, but as you may agree, he is NOT equal in the eyes of the court, and you have not joined us to affect change preferring to protect the perceived advantages of women.
"I would venture to say MOST parents are like that."
I agree.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
"Jay R Says: EXACTLY! Thank you for stating so well and succintly why feminism is NOT about equality
Except, I didn't do that, don't put words in my mouth, I stated the opposite and I stand by it. Your interpretation of that is whatever you want it to be, but don't go twisting my words."
You did write that you support equality FOR WOMEN.
You may also note that it was you and not I who wrote the following:
"the feminists wymnns hate us!"
December 17th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Melissa L,
I used your words exactly, I put nothing in your mouth. The difference being, I thought about what you said, but you, apparently, did not. The problem is that you live in the fantasy world of what you think "feminism" OUGHT to be (something that makes you feel good about yourself all the time, you wonderful woman!), whereas I live in the real world of what "feminism" is and has been (you should feel bad about yourself all the time, you nasty man!). On paper, both Communism and Fascism both looked pretty good, didn't they? Same thing with feminism -- the road to hell has been paved with its supposed good intentions, eh, Comrade? If it is not the philosophy of feminism which is fatally flawed and hateful, then I suppose the fatal flaws and hatred have been in its adherents who have imposed it on the rest of us.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
I'm glad we're talking about this.
The next time you see a commercial advertising diamonds or jewelry make sure you write down the name of the company. Then when you go to the mall make sure you stop into one of these stores and express yourself to them.
Tell them you are offended by their commercials which perpetuate unhealthy stereotypes of men and undeserving of love unless they pay for it. And tell them you will never buy from their store as long as they disseminate such egregious, false, dysfunctional, and unhealthy values.
And every time you see a man buying a diamond for his wife or his fiance "man up" and tell him you think he's wrong to do so.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
i never said all. i never borgified feminists. but you will notice she is a former head of now...
December 17th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
I’m surprised Glenn didn’t have a commercial about diamonds as being offensive and belittling to men. Those are the most degrading commercials directed at men on TV.
“Every Kiss Begins with Kay” by Kay Jewelers is the worst. If men are stupid and shallow enough to buy into that stuff God help them.
A lot of people pay with their lives to adorn selfish females. Everyone should see the movie “Blood Diamond”.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Melissa, I think most of the people here agree and thank Karen DeCrow.
You might find the results of these searches enlightening:
Karen DeCrow site:glennsacks.com>
Karen DeCrow site:feministe.powweb.com>
Karen DeCrow site:feministing.com>
Karen DeCrow site:pandagon.blogsome.com>
I did find this description of Karen DeCrow on a well known (I think) feminist site: Karen DeCrow (childless second wife) It's amusing how this feminist site devalues DeCrow by calling her a childless woman, as well as a second wife. I can't remember who it is that's the misogynist. Many feminists sites have told me it is me.
December 17th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Sigh. Bad HTML fu. Let me try again.
karen decrow site:glennsacks.com
karen decrow site:pandagon.blogsome.com
karen decrow site:feministe.powweb.com
karen decrow site:feministing.com
I did find this description of Karen DeCrow on a well known (I think) feminist site: The Liz Library: AMERICAN ACADEMY OF MATRIMONIAL LAWYERS: a website permeated with father's rights drivel: ... Karen DeCrow (childless second wife) It's amusing how this feminist site devalues, dehumanizes, defeminizes DeCrow by calling her a childless woman, as well as a second wife. I can't remember who it is that's the misogynist. Many feminists sites have told me it is me.
Now let's see if I got it right this time....
December 17th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Ah ha! I got the html for those searches right that time, but you won't know it until Glenn retrieves it from moderation. At any rate, suffice it to say that none of our leading modern feminist blogs have ever mentioned Karen DeCrow, with the sole mentions of Ms. DeCrow appearing in a very few comments.
Her contributions have gone down the memory hole.
December 17th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Karen DeCrow did not support a Borg-like, insect-like society, in which males (and eventually most women) have NO parental rights.
The National Organization of Women has changed since Karen DeCrow was president.
December 17th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
..The feminist women I've met Are almost like infantile barbarians. They push their hysteria power around whimsically, because they can!!!
..There was an academic study done around 10 years ago, i can't quite remember where it came from..
But the study was designed to see what sex would abuse power over others more....men or women.
They designed questions, and test activities for 50 adolescent boys..and 50 adolescent girls...And the results were surprisingly conclusive!!
Girls were 5 times more likelly to abuse any power over others that was given to them!!
To show a real world example to shore us their conclusions, they pointed out many surveys that show women would rather work for a man than a women!!
They have Klan hysteria lynch power.... and yes they are abusing it!!!
December 17th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
"So now PPD is a woman's FAULT!?! And you wonder why you can't be taken seriously. Jesus."
Melissa,
How you jump from my statement about likelihood of divorce and causes of divorce, to your beyond-the-pale conclusion and "false accusation" that I have stated PPD is a woman's fault is beyone me.
At issue here is that women's opportunities with men have been destroyed in this country by a terrible imbalance of power within relationships.
This is why so many good men do not want to ever marry -- or ever marry again.
This is why so many good men do not want to have children -- or ever have children again.
It is not about blame between members of a couple.
It is about an inherently unstable social model which has taken hold in America.
If you have an young adult son, or have one some day, you will find yourself understanding exactly this concern.
If you fail to look beyond yourself to the lives of other people who happen to be male -- people who one presumes you might care about -- then you will see that it is not good for society for either gender to hold all the cards.
This is what America has right now in marriage, and in unmarried couples with children.
And the results are obviously disasterous.
Millions upon millions of men are avoiding not just marriage in America, but women.
That does not seem to me to be very good for women or men.
December 17th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Jay R: It would appear that you are making Ad Hominen attacks: Jay R said: "The difference being, I thought about what you said, but you, apparently, did not. The problem is that you live in the fantasy world of what you think "feminism" OUGHT to be (something that makes you feel good about yourself all the time, you wonderful woman!),
Additionally, when a person claims to have better understanding of the thoughts and opinions of another person than that other person does, it is logically suspect. It takes some real good evidence to prove that someone thinks one thing, then says another when it is a matter of the person's opinion.
There are several posters who are having a problem with your style. It doesn't help your argument be believable to use these tactics. But it does make the topics annoying to read.
Glenn has asked for no Ad Hominen attacks. (I need to check the spelling...lol)
December 17th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Betsy said: I agree with Glenn. I think it's a very kind and laudable thing for a man to do, and I certainly think it is great for a man to try to appreciate the effort that goes into pregnancy and childbirth.
I disagree with you and Glenn in this regard. I think that anytime a man gives "things" to women it sets a precedent that other men are expected to follow.
I don't believe that my value as a man or a human being should be measured by the "baubles" and conspicuous consumer items I purchase for my wife.
I find such notions Patriarchal and women have denounced patriarchy.
I don't think that child birth should ever be rewarded. It is already an amazing gift that only women have. To conclude that she deserves something more for these efforts cheapens this miracle.
The whole thing smacks of prostitution. If I want a prostitute I'll rent one by the hour.
December 17th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
To make more clear what I just said:
I think if you say it's OK for one reason and not OK for another is ultimately a double standard which will be held against men.
We've already seen how these double standards rob men of their rights so why would we want to perpetuate them even under controlled circumstances?
Either my value as a human being is that of a beast of burden or it isn't.
I don't feel there is a middle ground which won't lead to exploitation down the road.
December 17th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
AP said: Millions upon millions of men are avoiding not just marriage in America, but women.
I just don't think this is true. Let's agree to disagree.
Darling Glenn posters: I fear I've derailed the comments yet again. I don't want to turn the post into a "which feminists are better feminists" and "which people have it worse" or "what person said what where..."
I think I've been pretty clear about my position about what feminism is or isn't to me, what feminist sites I choose to go to, what I like about them, and that we're not all part of some Shared Collective that agrees with all things. My point about Karen DeCrow is that she is a feminist, a (yes, former) head of NOW and she isn't railing against ya'll... not everyone (I would venture to say not MOST people) who identify as a feminist holds the same beliefs. I don't want to be judged as an American based on Bush's leadership. My main frustration is the jumps to the "FEMINISTS SAY..." and the like.
Anywho, I like my bracelet. I think the term push present is gross, i don't think it's a new phenom or anything, I think it's just now been publicized.
More on topic, I think Jean, you've gone a tad off the handle with the idea of no gift giving. I mean... I guess if you wanna teach your woman a lesson about not buying affection, go nuts. It's a cold concept to me, it assumes the worst of both parties and I think it doesn't support GIFT giving in all senses of the word GIFT.
December 17th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Eh...well, I suppose it is true if the man chooses to do so, it can be good, and if it's an obligation, it's horrific. But honestly, my initial reaction is that either way, I can't say I approve of the precedent. This is childbirth, after all. The time when both parents are blessed with the gift of creating and raising a new life. Who has time to think about diamonds and material luxuries compared to such an emotional event?
December 17th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
The time when both parents are blessed with the gift of creating and raising a new life. Who has time to think about diamonds and material luxuries compared to such an emotional event?
Hear hear!
Instead of push presents, parents should be strongly be considering college funds, future house down payments, and basically starting the kid off early on a market index fund like the Vanguard 500.
December 17th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
jerry said:Instead of push presents, parents should be strongly be considering college funds, future house down payments, and basically starting the kid off early on a market index fund like the Vanguard 500.
and... a gift now and then doesn't take away from that. Jeeze. Let's get a little perspective. Yes, the child is the blessing. yes it's a wondrous thing.
I hesitate to go here. BUT. When a person gives birth, the correct and instinctive reaction is to shift all thought, regard and concern to the baby. It isn't bad to acknowledge the life-change is something that effects both parents and marking special occasions with gifts is, traditionally, a GOOD THING. And sorry guys, I'm sure if you COULD take on the task of child birthing, you would, and you'd share it, and I think you'd probably appreciate a token gift to show love and affection after you'd given birth too. So... please. Perspective is the name of the game.
December 17th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Since the new mom in the article essentially only 'worked hard' for only 17 hours as compared to so many fathers that are literally worked to death and/or otherwise killed off through various forms of premture death induced by fatherhood and separation-divorce ... based on my experience and study, a guy who buys the mother the earings in my view is a dope. He'd likely be better off discrtetely buying a DNA test kit and discretely confirming probable paternity.
Mike
December 17th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
and... a gift now and then doesn't take away from that. Jeeze. Let's get a little perspective. Yes, the child is the blessing. yes it's a wondrous thing.
It depends on the nature of the gift and of course the relative income of the family.
A thousand dollars of diamonds in a bracelet or a ring pushed on a family by an advertising campaign probably does take away from the child. (IIRC $1000 is a pretty small ring or bracelet).
As a commenter to the article said,
"A prepaid college education for the child would be better than diamonds" -- Joli, Athens, Ohio
If I were a mother, I would vastly prefer knowing that the child had $1,000 and 18 years to invest in a college plan than having that $1,000 in a diamond ring.
Dunno, unless I were made of money, as a father, I would be incredibly shocked if my wife expressed any sort of different sentiment.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
it isn't bad to acknowledge the life-change is something that effects both parents and marking special occasions with gifts is, traditionally, a GOOD THING.
This bolded part may explain why having the family divert needed funds to an expensive bauble to one parent seems incredibly bizarre.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Just remember, every divorce begins with Kay's or some such nonsensical thing
December 17th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
I see this as another oddball residual effect of feminism. Like communism, feminism only considered people in terms of their econimic worth. Thus, women need to now be compensated for everything.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Tony said: I see this as another oddball residual effect of feminism. Like communism, feminism only considered people in terms of their econimic worth. Thus, women need to now be compensated for everything.
Funny, considering most feminist websites said they weren't a fan of this idea... But isn't it nice to jump to blaming someone.
jerry: I guess you're just a very very responsible spender, you never splurge on anything and save every extra penny that isn't for essentials for your children, right? Because PERSPECTIVE. If you don't HAVE $1000, don't spend it. We didn't, he didn't- we had a couple hundred to buy EACH OTHER GIFTS (catch that?) and it. was. nice. because. of. the. sentiment. It wasn't a requirement of childbirth.
Horse? Are you breathing? Nope... I beat it to death now.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Melissa: "I don't want to turn the post into a "which feminists are better feminists" and "which people have it worse" or "what person said what where...""
That's unfortunate. And I thought the conversation was going so well (I am still hoping to hear your thoughts on the ERA). Your recognition in another thread that pro-choice for men is a good idea really says a lot for your brand of feminism. You may or may not recognize that there is a problem with the mainstream feminism that holds the purse strings of your movement, but my guess is you are open minded enough to realize it - given time. I'll be impressed if NOW ever speaks in favor of pro-choice for men!
My suggestion is to spend some time looking around for equity and individualist feminism vs. gender feminism. Most mainstream feminism is gender feminism which seeks " .. to use legal means to give preference to women in such areas as spousal abuse, child custody, sexual harassment, divorce proceedings, and pay equity." When the men and women here complain about feminism, it is the gender feminists we are complaining about.
Equity feminism is closer to what you seem to lean - for the most part - perhaps without even realizing it. This is non-NOW oriented and "...aims for full civil and legal equality" without special laws (the VAWA and pro-female divorce/family courts, affirmative action, and the like). What equity and individualist feminists believe is that both genders should have 100% equal opportunities and responsibilities....what a woman (or a man) does with these realities is dependent upon personal choice not the courts or legislature. In summary: you can't legislate respect, you can only earn it.
The MRM exists because too many gender feminists believe that you can legislate respect without earning it. We (read: most masculinists, equity feminists and individualist feminists) believe that with rights/opportunities comes responsibilities in equal measure. Too many gender feminists feel that they can have their equal opportunities but with a nice, soft gender-specific blanket to protect them.
A good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_feminism
December 17th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Lance: I didn't mean I didn't want to ever discuss it, I just feel like I'm always hijacking the threads here. I respect your suggestions. I do feel, however, that being inside a system you believe in is a better place to be than looking for ways around or outside looking in.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Incidentally Melissa, reading some of your comments, I'm not sure if "shared parenting" means the same to you as it does in our everyday speech. When folks here rail against the injustices partially brought about by mainstream feminism (NOW et al) concerning shared parenting, we mean post-divorce or in custody disputes. Previously, from what I have heard, NOW was in favor of shared parenting. NOW is no-longer supportive of these efforts. NOW also tries everything it can to discredit PAS and anything else that is viewed as anti-woman even when a truly egalitarian organization would accept the science regardless of whether or not women are "hurt" by it.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
"(...) why he could never understand how much he suffers (...)"
A beautiful involuntary expression of the central issue giving rise to feminism's success and men's rights activism to try to counterbalance it.
Dare care for yourself, dare care for your own suffering even half as eagerly and expressively as any ordinary woman is used to and respected for, perhaps for ten days in a row, and you will get live data delivered by the women as well as the men around you, even by the children, fit to answer the issue raised by Glenn's subconscious selfexpression cited above, one might suggest.
Greetings,
Joe
December 17th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Lance: I got it. I did with the googles on the shared parenting... :) If NOW doesn't support it now (hee, kind of funny there, moving on...) then it isn't a creedo passed on high to the feminists to rally for. Incidentally, I don't donate to NOW because I start to worry about any organization that gets too big for its britches. Doesn't make me not a feminist.
December 18th, 2007 at 12:02 am
Melissa: "I do feel, however, that being inside a system you believe in is a better place to be than looking for ways around or outside looking in."
I'm not sure what you mean. Could you explain?
Melissa: "I just feel like I'm always hijacking the threads here. "
Don't sweat it. Seriously. People here do like to debate. Threads die off pretty quickly unless there is a good debate. At ~100 posts, this is pretty good and there is only so much people can talk about a "push present" (what a name!).
So what do you think now that you have stuck around? As you can tell, most of us are joined by some common beliefs though there is quite a continuum. Sometimes there is a lot of anger in the group from men who have lost their children, men who have been beaten by wives/girlfriends with no outside support, women who love men in these predicaments, and so on. We all have our pet issues and we certainly don't always get along (as evidenced by the unfortunate interaction between myself and another individual in the "Male birth control" thread). But the majority of people here are open minded enough to listen to another person's point of view, and as you have noticed: Glenn very rarely if ever censors speech (feminist, masculinist or otherwise) and censorship is one thing most of us can't abide.
Now if you want to see a mix of opinions within the movement, take a look at the following thread. Most of the regulars from all sides came in on this one (radicals/militants all the way up through moderates). This is probably the most serious (and thought provoking) thread I have ever seen on this site and it is probably a good one to take a look at. It starts innocently enough: a sympathetic, generally masculinist woman named Betsy wrote an email to Glenn and all hell breaks loose when he posted it with her permission. I underscore this thread though not to scare you about the MRM, but to show you that it really is a multi-layered and multi-faceted movement (just as the feminist movement is). I should note that Betsy has stuck around - in fact she commented above!
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1547
December 18th, 2007 at 12:12 am
Lance: I was just reading that. So yeah... I think that she's right, and I think some of the posters who said they agreed with her slipped right back into the same bashing a few threads later. I don't believe I've ever said I think all MRAs are stupid or anything like that, I know I don't hate men. I think that these threads get hijacked VERY often by very linear points (not to be picky, but Michael H above is an example) which is something I'm not fond of contributing to.
A lot of the issues that are raised here are ones I haven't thought about because they are outside of my personal life experience, and I think that it's a good thing to expand. Mostly, though, it's exhausting posting here, but I imagine it would be like that for one of you on a feminist website. SO yes... I don't agree with a LOT of what is said here. I think there is a lot of bitterness that isn't worked out as much as reinforced by repetitive comments. I hope there is a Kos-like blog where you guys can post and vent your frustrations productively because it's really a great thing to have (I have one for moms I LOVE). I'm not ever going to change my position on the core belief of feminism, even if I wish there were leveler heads in play some times.
I have yet to see a troll here, which I think is why speech isn't censored here like it is on other sites. So that's good, I guess... it's not the type of site that attracts that sort of behavior. Sometimes though I get so tired of rereading every. single. word. posted because it's searched for every nuance of possible feminazi-ism that it's difficult to see your point through the bitter muck. That's my impression so far and enough for tonight because my hubby is gonna be very disappointed if I don't get to bed. :)
December 18th, 2007 at 1:17 am
Melissa: "I think that she's right, and I think some of the posters who said they agreed with her slipped right back into the same bashing a few threads later."
Possibly..But bashing really is in the eyes of the beholder. I'm not sure which posters you are speaking of, but depending, even my statements could be considered "bashing" to a person who doesn't understand the intricacies of the gender movements (or my particular point of view). I enjoyed her post as well because she made a very important distinction: bashing the wife/gf/system who hurt you is completely understandable and encouraged, but bashing all women is counter-productive. She also accounted for the deep hurt and loss many men have experienced at the hands of a biased family court system.
I don't want to beat a dead horse, but most of the feminazi speech here truly is directed at a branch of the movement that is subverting mens rights instead of giving everyone equal rights. Hell, I've even dropped the "gender" from "gender feminism" in the past when complaining about this branch of feminism, but I would hope that by now you know very well where I am coming from (whether or not you agree with me). Many (most?) of us here are former feminists who one day started to ask the uncomfortable questions: such as are all men really demons and all women really saints?
Melissa: "I have yet to see a troll here, which I think is why speech isn't censored here like it is on other sites. "
They come up on occasion - especially from various gender feminist sites..google "Cindy Ross site:glennsacks.com"..but we have been known to debate them pretty heavily when they come in with obvious double-standard speak (like CRoss and her disbelief in DV against men). If anything, we enjoy them!
Much of the reason why we hate censorship is because most of us have experienced censorship on feministing and other sites. One persons troll is another persons debate "adversary". I seem to remember your first day you (or was it another person from feministing) was called a troll. You may remember, we jumped all over Judge for saying it: we hadn't come to the conclusion yet whether or not you were a troll or an interested party...thankfully, you turned out to be curious.
Melissa: "... hijacked VERY often by very linear points (not to be picky, but Michael H above is an example) "
True. Many people here have one or two pet issues (you can see Michael's). My pet issues are reproductive equality, male disposability in society, educational and health disparity, and DV - but I am known to comment on everything.
Melissa: "I'm not ever going to change my position on the core belief of feminism, even if I wish there were leveler heads in play some times."
I hope by now that you realize most people here don't want to change your mind as much as expand it (while we too have our minds expanded). In terms of places to vent, you're pretty much looking at it I guess - hence why so many people did take offense by Betsy's letter in that thread. I can see where they are coming from and I respect their position even if I don't agree with it. While I have my pet issues, I'm not one of the angry ones so I really don't know if they have anywhere else to go. I'm here because I just hate injustice that's all.
Well I too must go to bed lest my wife begin to wonder where I am at.
December 18th, 2007 at 2:42 am
This is an interesting dynamic here. This is a topic that I admittedly have not thought much about, so I got to consider both viewpoints without any prior opinion on the matter. My response to these types of things is usually to snort and think "who the hell would fall for that crap?". Apparently I have blind spots of my own, given my knowledge of the effectiveness of advertising. Anyway...enough about the "ah-HA!" moment...
I can see the propensity of certain types of women to demand gifts of the finest caliber, and that men will try and spend their way into the hearts of women (both of which are reprehensible types of manipulation). I have also seen how competitive women are with each other over everything from their looks to their boyfriends, why should a push present be any different I suppose....? My contention is that if she's concerned at all that you get her one, that's your first clue to get OUT of the relationship...right after you get a paternity test. In fact, that's REALLY when you should be slapping yourself on the forehead and berating yourself for taking so long to figure it out.
The oddly entertaining thing to watch is Melissa and her debaters slowly circle each other, little tentative sniffs, and sort of almost tentatively agree on some things. THIS is why I have far fewer problems with feminists (singular) than I do with feminists (plural). Peer pressure is at the root of a lot of today's evils, in fact most injustice exists through misinformed peer pressure. It's why discussion between the two "camps" is imperative. It's also why self-censorship is the wrong way to go. People can choose to engage the ninnies and wear themselves out (in which case they arrived looking for a fight, and got what they wanted) or they can simply choose to ignore that persons posts from that point...just like for any other topic.
But every once in a while someone sticks around, and argues her points from HER viewpoint, without the support of several canards she used to think were taken for granted universally, and usually hammered with information that is so far removed from everything she has been taught that it HAS to be outright fabrication....right? But at the core, she has some really good points, from both perspectives.
And some of the guys here started out just kneejerk reacting in opposition, but like I said, slowly came around to realize that at the core she had a point. Although I feel they would contend lack of understanding on her part, I would wager her perspective on these issues is different now than it was 4 months ago, for example.
There is common ground between the two. It's called basic human decency, and while I personally don't advocate some kind of "official" cooperation on anything (juvenile as that sounds), it's a good thing to remind everyone that we're talking about real people here, with people they care about.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:57 am
This thread has gotten very long and I do not have enough time to read through everything so I will just state my opinion on the issues of gifts and expectations and hope that some people find my perspective to be agreeable.
To me the entire notion of giving a gift is about choosing to display ones affection in material form.
There are of course MANY other ways to display ones affection, and each has their place... I would be wary about placing too much importance upon any one form of display as really it is the whole package that is most important.
All too often it becomes very easy to over emphasize these material displays of affection because they can so easily be compared to the displays made by others. It is far easier for example to measure the "value" of a new diamond ring against the ring your friend recieved than to measure the "value" of actions taken by ones significant other and compare that against the actions taken within your friends relationships.
I believe this is the reason why it can so quickly become expected for gifts to be associated with certain events... because they are the sorts of displays of affection that are most easily put on display for other people to look and say "wow... now that is a good relationship".
The problem with this philosophy of course is that it doesn't matter what other people think... what matters is how the two people within the relationship make eachother feel... and that can be achieved just as easily with acts of loving kindness as it can be with a shiny present.
This is where choice comes into the picture... when a gift becomes expected, we have essentially taken away the option for someone to select to display their love and affection in any other way.
We've essentially designated the "proper" method for showing someone that you care... and that quite frankly is just plain stupid.
Who is to say that if someone selects to show that they care by some means other than presents that they care any less than the person who instead shells out thousands of dollars to purchase a nice new piece of jewlery.
By that metric I suppose that ones capacity to love is measured by the size of ones bank account... and that is something I find to be most disturbing.
Gifts should never be expected... they should always be a pleasant surprise when recieved, something that brings a smile to your face because you were not expecting it, not because you are glad someone came through with their obligation to buy you something.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:48 am
How times have changed. When i was born back in the late 60s my mother thought the mere presence of her baby boy was gift enough, reward enough, for the labor and the c-section. These "push gifts" are just another way for society to tell men women are our betters. Its a way of making us worship at the altar of these increasingly megalomaniacal people, and if we dont do so we'll be made to look like jerks.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:43 am
I think it's more an attempt to make us worship at the altar of Mammon, courtesy of the advertising and retail trades.
It's thanks to them that our newsagents now stock 'Happily Divorced' cards as well as ones celebrating National 'Teachers Day,' 'Step-parents Day' and (coming soon - but I want the credit for it!) 'National Arse-Scratching Day.'
December 18th, 2007 at 6:44 am
Melissa said:More on topic, I think Jean, you've gone a tad off the handle with the idea of no gift giving. I mean... I guess if you wanna teach your woman a lesson about not buying affection, go nuts. It's a cold concept to me, it assumes the worst of both parties and I think it doesn't support GIFT giving in all senses of the word GIFT.
My how you bristle at the sight of a man who won't give gifts to his wife. Careful Melissa your "sense of entitlement" is showing.
My point is that women have rejected patriarchy. Patriarchy was more than male control. It was a contract between men and women that men would provide and women would have children and take care of them and the husband. It was a fair deal especially since throughout most of human history labor was completely manual and men had a competitive advantage in resource gathering and war and women had the advantage in nurturing and child bearing. Women had the womb. But men had a womb too. They created a woman of resource security so that a family could grow and be nurtured and the woman would be safe to raise the children without worry of starvation or attack from outside predators.
But now that women have rejected patriarchy why should they insist men maintain their patriarchal responsibility to provide? They want to call us scum and rapists one minute and the next they want us to pay their bills.
You say, "it assumes the worst of both parties" and I say it assumes the worst of one party. And I'd also say that's a pretty valid assumption.
I'm not going back to the old days. If a woman wants to be with me she needs to think of me as a human being with needs and feelings and not a walking ATM with genitals.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:55 am
I can't believe that any woman would want a piece of jewlery after having a baby. I'd settle for a man who held my hand during contractions, held my hair during morning sickness, and held our child in his heart. I don't want some sparkly thing that the baby will put in it's mouth at first oppertunity. Besides, I saw giving birth to my daughter as a privledge, one that most men I've ever met would love to have.
December 18th, 2007 at 8:47 am
Jean said: My how you bristle at the sight of a man who won't give gifts to his wife. Careful Melissa your "sense of entitlement" is showing.
I bristle at the way you obviously would not give your wife the same consideration as a person as other people in your life- your friends, your children, your parents, your siblings- unless I am incorrect and you give gifts to no one? Because all you've done with your attitude is declare that a woman you supposedly love enough to marry and share a life with is a person who has to show her gratitude for your love by forsaking all material expressions of giving. Which... ok.... but a little harsh no?
It's a different standard. I give my Husband gifts because I like to see him smile, I like to see him use something I've bought him, read a book I think he'd like, wear a shirt I thought matched his eyes... I like to make him happy. I would hope you do the same for your wife.
December 18th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Well said Dan...well said indeed. I'm glad that Melissa has stuck around. I was cogitating on the following statement of mine this morning, and thought I would reinforce the point a little.
Lance: "Many (most?) of us here are former feminists who one day started to ask the uncomfortable questions: such as are all men really demons and all women really saints?"
An example of one of these feminists-turned-masculinist is Dr. Warren Farrell (who incidentally, is the only man to be elected three times to the board of directors of NOW in NY). In the ~80's he began to question pure-feminist principles when he realized that feminism was by its nature biased towards feminine interests - not true egalitarian interests.
A great example is the so-called pay gap. He used to fight hard to end what he perceived to be discrimination in favor of men....that was until he realized a fundamental truth: capitalism is pretty darned efficient. If I, as a business owner, could pay women less for the SAME work and the SAME hours and the SAME risks as men, then why would I ever higher men at all? The reality is that in the vast majority of cases, the so-called pay gap is a product of women's and men's CHOICES - not discrimination. He has written a well received book on the subject, and even though NOW doesn't like the text since it undermines one of their reasons for being, it is beginning to gain ground among economists and the mainstream alike.
http://www.warrenfarrell.com/
December 18th, 2007 at 10:21 am
There's nothing wrong with a gift freely given, with no expectations. GETTING one as a way to guarantee certain behavior in return (get me that or else...) or GIVING one with the purpose of getting a particular response from the recipient (I gave you this, now you owe me...) perverts the purpose.
How much difference is there between "I gave you a baby, now give me a diamond, or else!" from "I bought you dinner, now pay me back with..."?
Just saying. Women aren't perfect, and neither are men. If you ask someone on the street if he or she would like a present for doing X, Y, or Z, many would say "sure, why not?" Still, there are plenty of each sex who give presents with no strings attached. What's apparent is that the jewelry industry (the same people of "diamonds are forever," who also claim that men should be spending 2 months(!) salary on an engagement ring) is doing their best to ensure that this becomes a new, expensive "tradition."
December 18th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Exactly Rosemary. My guess is that the vehement anti-push tot gift people are really reacting to the logical conclusion of the "popularity" of the gift. The eventual obligation to buy yet another "traditional" gift for women, for doing what they were pretty much designed for.
I understand completely that gifts are an expression of love. What many here take issue with is the tendency for "traditional" gifts to become "status" gifts...much like an engagement ring has become.
December 18th, 2007 at 11:59 am
"There's nothing wrong with a gift freely given, with no expectations. GETTING one as a way to guarantee certain behavior in return (get me that or else...) or GIVING one with the purpose of getting a particular response from the recipient (I gave you this, now you owe me...) perverts the purpose."
You've hit the nail right on the head.
Giving gifts is fine and a viable expression of ones care for another human being... having people demand that you pay tribute to them is not.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Wow, I got to this arguement late. But seriously folks, push present? Ha, ha, ha, ha.....I had to read that twice before
I actually believed it. If and when I actually decide to get married and if and when my wife and I have a child, I will not be getting something like a push present for her. That is rediculous. I think a better idea is to get her a bottle of champagne. I mean hell, she hasn't probably had a drink for nine months or so. That seams better.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Absolutely nonsensical.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Melissa said: I bristle at the way you obviously would not give your wife the same consideration as a person as other people in your life- your friends, your children, your parents, your siblings- unless I am incorrect and you give gifts to no one? Because all you've done with your attitude is declare that a woman you supposedly love enough to marry and share a life with is a person who has to show her gratitude for your love by forsaking all material expressions of giving. Which... ok.... but a little harsh no?
You're right. I wouldn't give my mom or my children or my siblings a gift for having my baby either.
Women have choices. In fact they have almost all the choices. I'm not going to worship the ground some woman walks on just because she deigns to have my child.
Frankly I think it's irresponsible for a man to give his wife expensive gifts in the first place. It would be far wiser to set up an education fund for the child instead. But when it comes to women "cashing in" the words, "Do it for the children" seem far away.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Lance said: A great example is the so-called pay gap. He used to fight hard to end what he perceived to be discrimination in favor of men....that was until he realized a fundamental truth: capitalism is pretty darned efficient. If I, as a business owner, could pay women less for the SAME work and the SAME hours and the SAME risks as men, then why would I ever higher men at all? The reality is that in the vast majority of cases, the so-called pay gap is a product of women's and men's CHOICES - not discrimination. He has written a well received book on the subject, and even though NOW doesn't like the text since it undermines one of their reasons for being, it is beginning to gain ground among economists and the mainstream alike.
Women choose employment based on three primary criteria: working conditions, job satisfaction, and flexibility of hours. Men choose employment based on one primary criteria: Money.
This is what makes the difference in men and women's pay.
How can we even up the odds? Feminist say that women should just be paid more. The reality is that in many ways women are being paid more. They use their healthcare more than men do. They take more days off each year than men do. That costs the company money to have someone else do their job while they are gone. And let's not even get started on the lawsuits.
The only way to end the wage gap is for women to take jobs that are more uncomfortable. They must travel and work outside in the elements like men. They must take more shifts at night. And let's not forget the entire industries of mineral extraction, timber harvest, and commercial fishing that women are almost completely absent in.
As for flexibility of hours women can even the odds with men. They can share their power as parent with men. If men are allowed and expected and appreciated and respected for staying home with kids on an equal basis as women then this advantage that men have is neutralized.
I know that is revolutionary to even suggest a woman has power let alone ask her to share that power, but there it is.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Melissa said:
"AP said: Millions upon millions of men are avoiding not just marriage in America, but women.
I just don't think this is true. Let's agree to disagree."
So, you are saying, in effect, "I don't like your fact, but I am not willing to investigate the truth of what you say (in order to avoid any possibility of cognitive dissonance), and so the "discussion" is over." Look at the recent census data and publicized studies! Look at the declining numbers of marriages, look at the increasing numbers of single-mother households, look at the increasing age of those men who are willing to marry, look at the statistic that 1/3 of all births are to unmarried women. There is a mountain of evidence available. None are so blind as those who will not see.
Stephen M. Weiss said:
"Jay R: It would appear that you are making Ad Hominen attacks: Jay R said: "The difference being, I thought about what you said, but you, apparently, did not. The problem is that you live in the fantasy world of what you think "feminism" OUGHT to be (something that makes you feel good about yourself all the time, you wonderful woman!)" ... There are several posters who are having a problem with your style."
Not only do you not know how to pronounce or spell (or look up?) "ad hominem," but you apparently do not know what it means. I never attacked Melissa L as a person ("you are stupid" or "you are ugly") in order to skirt the issues. I responded to her accusation that I had "twisted her words" and had "put words in her mouth." I opined that she had not thought through what she had said, and had unintentionally supported a contrary position. I pointed out that her use of "feminism' is diametrically opposed to many other feminists' use of that term, and thus, by implication, that her continued identification with that term is is antithetical to the position she expresses -- which is true gender equality. As far as I am concerned, after the debacle of the last 40 years, no one who seeks true gender equality can validly identify as "feminist." It is oxymoronic. (No, Stephen, I'm not calling Melissa L. stupid!)
Stephen, you apparently have absorbed the common feminist tactic to paint any disagreement as personal attack and misogyny. Am I "guilty" at times of an irritated, sarcastic tone? Yes. Get over it. I've had the unrelenting and nightmarish misandry of feminism shoved up my fanny my entire life. I've seen the destruction it has wrought on our social institutions and personal relationships, and I have had enough! I want people to know that I am outraged. I want other men to join me in my righteous anger -- we have been far to passive for far too long! I feel no obligation to "make nice" or to pull my punches verbally. Although I personally have lived a tranquil and blessed life on the domestic front -- no divorce, no child custody issues, wonderful wife, great kids, parents married 65 years and counting, etc. -- I know that I am simply lucky (and that my careful discretion in selecting a non-feminist mate has paid off). I think things will begin to improve only after women come to fully appreciate how furious most men have become -- even those who have not yet been directly traumatized -- and how threatening that anger is to women's, and society's, long-term welfare.
Funny, it seems to me that it is your posts, not mine, which have drawn the most negative commentary. Common themes seem to be that you arrogantly feel that you have the right to judge others' opinions and positions, and would be the first to "ban" those you deem have the wrong tone, or in my case, "style." You also are very short on any analytical rebuttal of that which you would like to simply dismiss. You see, I assume on this forum that I am dealing with adult men and women who do not need to be intellectually or emotionally coddled; whose sensitivities and sensibilites are not so delicate that blunt language and aggressive positions will bring on a proverbial fit of the "vapors."
December 18th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Giving gifts is fine and a viable expression of ones care for another human being... having people demand that you pay tribute to them is not.
We all give gifts for X-mas and birthdays. We all expect to get gifts in return. There is nothing wrong with that.
Giving a gift to someone who has a unique ability and is already rewarded for that ability can only lead to a sense of entitlement down the road.
Women expect a diamond engagement ring, but 100 years ago such a thing was unheard of. If we accept this "push" gift thing it won't be long before it becomes an expectation.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Jay R said: I pointed out that her use of "feminism' is diametrically opposed to many other feminists' use of that term, and thus, by implication, that her continued identification with that term is is antithetical to the position she expresses -- which is true gender equality. As far as I am concerned, after the debacle of the last 40 years, no one who seeks true gender equality can validly identify as "feminist." It is oxymoronic. (No, Stephen, I'm not calling Melissa L. stupid!)
Right on Jay.
You can't hold it against us for not separating the various feminists into their respective ideological categories. If radical feminists, conservative feminists, liberal feminists, and moderate feminists all want to call themselves "feminists" then that is their problem.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Jay R. said: Funny, it seems to me that it is your posts, not mine, which have drawn the most negative commentary. Common themes seem to be that you arrogantly feel that you have the right to judge others' opinions and positions, and would be the first to "ban" those you deem have the wrong tone, or in my case, "style." You also are very short on any analytical rebuttal of that which you would like to simply dismiss. You see, I assume on this forum that I am dealing with adult men and women who do not need to be intellectually or emotionally coddled; whose sensitivities and sensibilites are not so delicate that blunt language and aggressive positions will bring on a proverbial fit of the "vapors."
You make an interesting observation Jay. I think the conclusion here is that Mr. Weiss is in fact a female masquerading as a man. His lack of logic or use of fact and his predilection for emotional argument betrays him (her).
December 18th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Jay said: There is a mountain of evidence available. None are so blind as those who will not see.
And I can use those "facts" in a million different ways. Women are having children outside of marriage because it is no longer socially taboo as it was before. Because job security and insurance doesn't rely on a man's salary. Because marriage as an institution is no longer necessary for people who love each other, because it's become so publicized as the "anti-gay, conservative moral institution" that men and women alike are bucking tradition and living together without marriage. That men and women are both getting married later because education time lines are beginning to increase, the ability to save up for basic needs like houses and cars necessitate the need to stay with parents or with roommates and family members while saving. I could go on and on and take the facts you listed above in different ways that have NOTHING to do with men suddenly revolting against the female gender.
And saying that someone hasn't thought about their words is, essentially, telling someone you know what they thought. So we're clear- YOU don't know what feminism means to ME, and YOU don't know what school of thought / type of feminist theory I choose to subscribe to, so give me a break. I THINK you are completely wrong in your ridiculous assertion that equality and feminism cannot be symbiotic. I THINK if I cared to engage you on it, I could give you "facts" you could twist in your own warped way to make them fit whatever your predisposed conclusion is. I'll be interested if you choose to tell me again that my thinking is somehow sub par due to your psychic abilities.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Melissa said: And I can use those "facts" in a million different ways. Women are having children outside of marriage because it is no longer socially taboo as it was before. Because job security and insurance doesn't rely on a man's salary.
You forgot because women can cash in on the baby daddy's paycheck for 20+ years. She can control him and make him miserable. And if the child is ever unhappy or feels "need" the mother can blame on the father who she never wanted in the first place.
What a freaking bargain!
It's funny how "what about the children" doesn't factor in before conception. That, I guess, is just another female prerogative.
Men are starting to wake up and see that not only can they be men, but they don't even have equal rights anymore. They see what I am seeing: there is a new aristocracy in this country and it's name is Women. They feel like men owe them everything and women owe men nothing in return.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
@ Melissa L: "And saying that someone hasn't thought about their words is, essentially, telling someone you know what they thought. So we're clear- YOU don't know what feminism means to ME, and YOU don't know what school of thought / type of feminist theory I choose to subscribe to, so give me a break. I THINK you are completely wrong in your ridiculous assertion that equality and feminism cannot be symbiotic. I THINK if I cared to engage you on it, I could give you "facts" you could twist in your own warped way to make them fit whatever your predisposed conclusion is. I'll be interested if you choose to tell me again that my thinking is somehow sub par due to your psychic abilities."
Ok, I get it. "Feminism" is whatever you choose it to be, and simultaneously, I suppose, what any other person decides it means for THEM -- which means that it is an essentially meaningless term, and thoroughly insulated from any critical examination. Once again, however, you unintentionally support my position, which is that the use of the term "feminist" or "feminism" is counter-productive. Either the term is so plastic that it is essentially meaningless and precludes critical discussion (your position), or it is an inherently sexist and misandric word (my position). Of course, if we adopt your position, then no one, including you, can tell me that my meaning is wrong, correct?
In light of these observations, no, I will not tell you that your thinking is sub par due to my psychic abilities. My psychic abilities have nothing to do with it. My intellectual abilities may, however, be involved. Pointing out that one has not considered all of the potential ramifications of expressing a particular position is not psychic, nor is it telling someone "what they thought." It is more pointing out to someone what they DIDN'T think.
It is not my intention to discourage your input, however. If you care to engage me with facts, I will be waiting ....
December 18th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Jay R: Yeah, you are right, I still hadn't looked up Ad Hominem. I did just now. Nah, the wiki definition sounds exactly like what you did. Your argument against Melissa L was that she didn't think and was in a fantasy land. You had some other stuff that was on target, but your personal attack at her was distracting. To me, it made it difficult to take you serious. It raises the level of conflict without positive effect.
Your subsequent post was better, and I appreciate it. Really.
Do you think I should use spell checker? Or maybe get a bigger font? I am not so used to not being able to review and edit my posts while I view them in entirety. I apologize for my sloppiness.
Short on analytical rebuttal...hmm.. That is not something I have ever been accused of before, along with being female. I think was you are detecting is that I think that writing that is belligerent, attacking, blindly one-sided and angry is rarely worth reading or thinking about. Like other posters recommend, I don't really read your posts while you rant and rave. You don't exist. All I see is somebody named Jean or Jay blathers a lot, but I can't tell what they are on about.
I was just hoping that if you could clean it up a bit, I could tell what you are talking about.
So, thanks bro.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
wiki says: "Feminism comprises a number of social, cultural and political movements, theories and moral philosophies concerned with gender inequalities and equal rights for women." That is there basic definition.
I can't see the sexist meaning there. Maybe NOW is sexist but feminism is not?
But, the implication is that if feminism assumes targeting equal rights for women, but only looks to correct cases where women have less than equal rights, then there is a rectifier effect, to borrow a term from electrical engineering, and perforce, the net effect is to have women have more than equal rights.
ie, if in every circumstance, a woman's rights are either equal or superior to a mans, then that is not equal rights at all, but systematic sexism.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
"there" should be "their" gah!
December 18th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Stephen: "wiki says: "Feminism comprises a number of social, cultural and political movements, theories and moral philosophies concerned with gender inequalities and equal rights for women." That is there basic definition. I can't see the sexist meaning there. Maybe NOW is sexist but feminism is not?"
Stephen, the sexism is staring you in the face. If feminism were egalitarian, the definition should say "gender inequalities and equal rights for women AND MEN". That is the fundamental implication and offense of FEMinism...and yes the FEM does mean something. It primarily focuses on FEMinine needs (as supported by Melissa's statements above no less). And as you say, "only looks to correct cases where women have less than equal rights."
An good example: if a so-called feminist group (such as NOW) is truly an egalitarian group, then they should fight equally for pro-choice for men (which Melissa has stated her support incidentally). If one were to give equal rights men and allow men to bow out of a pregnancy and subsequent child - as women can now - then this will hurt women because they will not longer be able to look to men as their ATM. Therefore, you will probably never see NOW - and other mainstream feminist groups - fight for pro-choice for men even though an egalitarian would.
Another example: the DV industry. Even with the vast amount of peer reviewed data stating quite clearly that women abuse men at least as often as men abuse women, so-called feminist groups such as NOW still maintain that it is a gender issue.
Another: hearth care...men have a real gap: the Life Gap (unlike the imagined Wage Gap).
Another: education
Another: suicide and mental health
Another: homelessness & helplessness
And so on .. and so on.... Many of us have reached a point where we wonder what gender feminists are really fighting for anymore...Except for within the military, women have all the opportunities in the world (far more then the average man) and what they do with these opportunities is their own choice.
Personally, I prefer the term equalist: "Some equalists believe that certain feminists have abandoned notions of equality, and instead focus only on females' rights to the point of excluding/promoting the subjugation of the rights of other sexes/genders. Equalists seek to promote the rights of females, males, and everything in between."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_egalitarian
December 18th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
@Stephen M. Weiss: At first you can't see the sexism inherent in "feminism," and then you conclude that the term implies systematic sexism. Better late than never, I suppose. Also inconsistent is your assertion that "Like other posters recommend, I don't really read your posts while you rant and rave." How do you know if I am "raving" (funny you provide no examples) if you don't read my posts? Actually, I would be much happier if you didn't read my posts, since the content of my posts doesn't seem to affect your responses one way or the other. Your penchant for telling other people how to "appropriately" express themselves is worse than condescending. It's boring.
December 18th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Lance said: Stephen, the sexism is staring you in the face. If feminism were egalitarian, the definition should say "gender inequalities and equal rights for women AND MEN". That is the fundamental implication and offense of FEMinism...and yes the FEM does mean something. It primarily focuses on FEMinine needs (as supported by Melissa's statements above no less). And as you say, "only looks to correct cases where women have less than equal rights."
And... you lost me. Because seriously, FEMINISM is about EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN. Your assertion is that cannot happen without taking "rights" away from men. My assertion is that is bullshit- if something isn't EQUAL then it is, by definition, slanted more heavily towards one side (in this case, feminism asserts that it's men) than the others. Ergo, to make the scales EQUAL, there needs to be a shift. HOWEVER... a lot of the arguments posted seem to assert that feminism is rampant in its need to be OVER men by oppressing them. I argue that is not the case. I also assert that equality is a subjective measurement. So I have no problem arguing (and pleasantly disagreeing) when assertions are made that a certain standard tips the scales too heavily in favor of females over males, or that the standard for equality isn't fair, etc. etc. But it's tiring to hear about how "feminism isn't for equality!" Maybe not your definition of equality, but the goal is plain as day.
December 18th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Er, lemme see: the wiki definition means equal rights. If women have equal rights, and there are only two sexes, then they must have equal rights to men. If they have equal rights to men, then men have equal rights to women, which is to say that it is egalitarian.
My second paragraph refers to what might have happened in reality to NOW. I really dont know for sure. It doesn't change or affect the definition. It is to say that if the practice of a group that thinks it is egalitarian is actually only to fix problems when to do so is in the favor of one sex, then they are not, by definition, egalitarian or feminist in practice. They may say they are feminist, but it is not possible to attain equal rights by accepting advantaged rights for one sex.
So, let me say clearly : The definition says that feminism is egalitarian. It says that any group which does not act egalitarian then does not meet the definition of feminism.
So, by this, you can see that Lance and I agree that NOW is not acting egalitarian. My argument is that that, by definition, implies that they are not in fact feminist, according to the wiki definition.
I have not argued that the wiki definition is the only definition in common use. Clearly NOW says they are feminist. By what I hear, all the best and original feminists have quit NOW in protest of its corrupt practice.
Ah, Melissa, while you only said his comment was Bullshit(not him personally), its still pretty antagonistic. And a waste of space and distracting. His comment has some truth behind it. I really didn't explain what the implication of the second paragraph was. Sometimes I dont see what people wont get. It's my bad.
And yes Jay R, I am trying to force myself to look beyond the ranting to see if there is an logic or useful data in your posts. You caught me! It is tough though.
December 18th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Gah, now I know why they were talking about 'Feminists' and "Gender Feminists'. Ok, so this is another thing where Mellisa says she is feminist and equalist, and Lance says in effect" You cant be equalist if you are (gender) femenist." But Mellisa isn't infact gender feminist at all by her writings.
Hmm, it seems a problem to use the term feminist to mean gender feminist when they are effectively opposites.
December 18th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
What I am curious about is why they say that gender feminism seeks to eliminate ANY differences in the sexes. But then, it says common usage is that gender feminism seeks to give advantage to women in family law. Gah! What the heck is the matter with these people? lol
December 18th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Melissa: "My assertion is that is bullshit- if something isn't EQUAL then it is, by definition, slanted more heavily towards one side (in this case, feminism asserts that it's men) than the others."
Exactly you just made my point: "feminism asserts that it's men"..not only is that assertion is patently false - as evidenced by our examples, and by the fact that there are a whole lot more men on the bottom then there are women - but the assertion automatically pre-disposes anyone buying into your brand of feminism to only consider issues from a female point of view and assume male guilt or privilege. Maintaining this assertion - even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary - makes feminism by definition sexist. For feminism to become egalitarian, you will need to drop this blanket assertion and instead consider each and every issue, with no cherry picking, and equally weigh both male and female perspectives. Mainstream feminists today do not do that.. And worse, not only do they not do that, but they feel that their one-sided point of view is actually egalitarian!
Melissa: "Ergo, to make the scales EQUAL, there needs to be a shift. HOWEVER... a lot of the arguments posted seem to assert that feminism is rampant in its need to be OVER men by oppressing them."
And how does one make this shift my dear? Special laws? Special programs? By undermining male students? ... etc... etc... All of these are forms of oppression and they are all sexist. If it were the other way around, you would be blogging to high hell about rampant sexism. The right way to do it: make sure everyone has equal opportunity..what individuals do with this opportunity is up to them.
So we egalitarians posit that as long as laws and programs are made with the interests of women over men, and as long as mainstream feminism supports this approach to gender relations, mainstream feminists can not in good faith call themselves egalitarians. Feminists will take the female perspective and they will falsely assume female victimhood and oppression. A few examples:
Feminism still fights for "women's health" at every turn, however women's health already receives far more funding the men's health. Note: women's lives are worth no more and no less then men's lives.
Feminists still contend that there is a pro-male bias in education. Just look at graduation rates.
Feminists fight for the VAWA and other DV legislation which blatantly discriminates against men: http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-VAWA-Discriminates-Against-Males.pdf
And so on....
Finally, far too many people purporting to be egalitarian are all too happy to spout off about patriarchy and male privilege while preaching blatant (or sometimes subtle) misandry. Incidentally, do you realize how much I hated being male in Middle School and High School thanks to that crap?? No one should hate to be who they are...everyone should feel empowered to do what they do best regardless of their gender.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:14 am
Stephen: "But Mellisa isn't infact gender feminist at all by her writings."
That is debatable. I haven't heard enough of her core beliefs (beyond her musings about whether or not feminism is egalitarian or not by definition). While in some ways she is equality-minded (w/pro-choice4men), she seems to see nothing wrong with the blanket assertion that in gender relations, women have the short end of stick.
Stephen: "What I am curious about is why they say that gender feminism seeks to eliminate ANY differences in the sexes. But then, it says common usage is that gender feminism seeks to give advantage to women in family law. Gah! What the heck is the matter with these people?
You hit the nail on the head here. A lot of the disconnect between gender feminism and egalitarianism is in the method of "eliminating differences." Individualist feminists and egalitarians do not believe that special laws and programs should be put in place. We believe that this is COUNTER to true equality and in fact ultimately hurts both men and women. It hurts men because men are always the assumed guilty party (as with Melissa's assertion), and it hurts women because as long as society believes that women "need protected", women won't truly be equal.
Instead, egalitarians and individualists believe that everyone should be afforded equal OPPORTUNITY. This is a subtle but significant difference...on the one hand is government protection which ultimately undermines the individual and on the other hand is the individual taking control of his or her own destiny, playing by the same rules as everyone else, and being allowed to make decisions for his or her self...and yes, being allowed to screw up on occasion.
Stephen: "Ah, Melissa, while you only said his comment was Bullshit(not him personally), its still pretty antagonistic. "
I took no offense. Obscenity in the heat of discussion is fully acceptable in my mind as long is there is meat around it. Melissa has shown herself to be meaty....hmmm..that didn't quite come out right, but you know what I mean.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Wrapping an additional name around the word feminism is a tactic to allow feminist groups to advocate nearly anything while still maintaining deniability. It's bullshit.
Same with MRA by the way. There's nutcases in both camps, and should "masculists" ever take hold of this, we're doomed to have the same stuff happen in reverse. I won't particularly mind, may even really enjoy it, but my daughters sure won't.
Feminism is as feminism does, even Forrest Gump is smart enough to see that.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:28 am
Dan: "Wrapping an additional name around the word feminism is a tactic to allow feminist groups to advocate nearly anything while still maintaining deniability. It's bullshit."
From a purest standpoint you are correct, but I can accept it. It allows people like Wendy to still call herself a feminist, while at the same time forwarding the agenda set in motion by the original feminists from generations ago (before the movement was hijacked by gender feminists). When I visit feminist blogs or feminist-oriented blogs, I can blend in pretty well depending upon their Brand and it doesn't usually take long to figure it out!
The same could be said for Christianity or just about every other movement or belief system. Why are there so many difference kinds of Christians? Don't they all believe the same thing?
So I allow and respect the different groups in large part because I just can't buy that everyone needs to believe all the same thing. As you correctly note, masculinism is also a multi-faceted beast. Warren Farrel is moderate while some of the folks here are certainly in the wings.
It's good that you have your daughters in mind...I just with more feminists had their sons in mind!
December 19th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Men are oppressors?
I've never known an oppressor work longer hours so he can afford to buy diamonds so he could give those diamonds to the oppressed so the oppressed would love him.
I wish I were oppressed.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:12 am
It always amazes me how feminists blame the fact that women go through the burden and suffering of child birth on the "patriarchy".
Many of them go around shouting "I bear the children and blah blah" like they didn't get any help. If anyone on here knows of any female that can reproduce asexually without the sperm of a human male, please share your knowledge.
Men did not create human beings, most specifically men did not create women. If women feel any entitlement or anger because they have to go through pregnancy and labour we should take it up with God or Allah or Buddha or whichever god you serve.
Men should not have to feel bad or in any other way feel obligated to women just for the mere fact that she can bear children. That's ridiculous. I'm sure many men today wished they could bear their own children and to hell with the lot of us women. As we all know many women already share that sentiment.
A man's role in reproduction is just as vital as a woman's. Until we're able to impregnate ourselves with the sperm of dogs, a man should be respected for the fact that without his sperm human kind becomes just as obsolete as without a woman's womb.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Current feminists support the government controlled ability of women to end their marriage, and take their children away from their father, without even having to negotiate the terms of the end of the marriage.
Current feminists are against a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting.
Current feminists pit women against one another for the declining ability and willingness of men to have children with them. In many countries, birth rates are too low to maintain a stable population without immigration.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
From Melissa:
Because seriously, FEMINISM is about EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN. Your assertion is that cannot happen without taking "rights" away from men. My assertion is that is bullshit- if something isn't EQUAL then it is, by definition, slanted more heavily towards one side (in this case, feminism asserts that it's men) than the others. Ergo, to make the scales EQUAL, there needs to be a shift. HOWEVER... a lot of the arguments posted seem to assert that feminism is rampant in its need to be OVER men by oppressing them.
The problem is many feminists (and MRAs) think that the the scales are completely tipped to the point that the other side is holding all the cards in society which is extremely untrue. I do believe that men may hold more cards but they most certainly do not hold them all. The trick is now that those radicals think that the other side has all the cards they can safely say that any opposition to balancing the scales is just an attempt at holding on to their privileged status. The arguments here aren't trying to assert that all feminists are trying to oppress men they are trying to assert that some feminists are trying to tip the scales in the opposite direction instead of balancing them out.
MRAs that visit feminist sights that point out things like false rape accusations (which for some reason some feminists think the Duke case was the first intenionally false rape accusation ever) and issues of child support (there are schools of feminists thought that will (get this) in one breath say that men should step to the plate and be the fathers they need to be but in the next breath accuse MRAs of just trying to get out of child support) are accused of trying to maintain the patriarchy (which I think exists but has been reduced to a feminists buzzword much like feminazi) simply because they don't blindly buy into their specific notion of equality.
...simply because they don't blindly buy into their specific notion of equality.
That last part is the main barrier to equality for both genders. I've read plenty of MRAs and feminists say that equality would be best achieved if everyone would embrace our ideas.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
These last ~20 comments have been really good.
I was just wanting to tie in another area of social evolution that I believe is driving this issue. The use of money as a significant and driving element of the family structure is quite recent.
Even as recently as my grandmother's day, the mothers and the daughters were sewing all the clothing as well as processing raw foodstuff staples all the way to canned goods. When the roof leaked, the father and his boys, and sometimes the mom too would climb on up there and fix it. Heck, they built it themself, of course they fixed it when it broke. And the houses broke often. No woman in her right mind would want to maintain one of those old houses! Mad at dad? Take the kids to the sisters for a weekend maybe. Sisters say: damn, I am cleaning for all these kids, Sister, fix up your relationship and get back home! Pa says: how the hell am I supposed to get those crops in if I sit here churning the damn butter and plucking the damn chicken? Man am I going to kiss ass when my wife gets home! I sure need a new coat as winter comes on and it is going to take her 20 hours to do it even though I just bought the canvas and flannel last week. Damn, I forgot the silly buttons, I wonder if she can use the old buttons...
December 19th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
I see it as milestone that Melissa has chosen to quote me on her website. I stand by what I said and would like to add the following to my previous post:
Men should not have to feel bad or in any other way feel obligated to women just for the mere fact that she can bear children. That's ridiculous. I'm sure many men today wished they could bear their own children and to hell with the lot of us women. As we all know many women already share that sentiment TOWARD MEN.
I think it's important to clarify that point.
And Glenn sorry if I embarass you. Got that impression from your comments. Unfortunately, my intention is not impress or spear the feelings of Melissa or anyone else. I am simply stating a fact, a truth ... as I a woman who has been through pregnancy and childbirth a number of times see it. Also let's not forget the context under which the comment was made ... men buying so-called "push" presents for wives who have just given birth. In another words, he's paying her for bearing forth his child in pain and agony like he was the one that assigned women this particular task.
Interesting that by posting my comment on her website she sought to portray all of us as the "crazies". She didn't bother to explain topic or context.
No matter, I'm not surprised. Nor am I ashamed of what I said. I stand by it and it is an assertion I've said to many a feminist in public. Many of them reacted in outrage like Melissa did, but here is someone that couldn't care less.
Notice I didn't say that women should not be respected for their contributions to procreation. I simply said I do not subscribe to men being portrayed as meaningless sperm donours and that they should be respected just as much for their role as women. They did not after all CHOOSE not to go through the hassles and burdens of pregnancy and childbirth. So why blame them for something they had no control over? Rather I'd like to see men and their sperm respected as a vital party of our humanity. Since can not get pregnant with animal sperm, we should not treat human males as insignificant as one can not occur without the other.
I'm not sure where I got it wrong but what's so misogynistic about that???
December 20th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Davina,
Thank you for your posts. You give me hope! :)
December 20th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Davina said: I'm sure many men today wished they could bear their own children and to hell with the lot of us women. As we all know many women already share that sentiment TOWARD MEN.
Actually men can have children without a woman. A man can purchase eggs from Europe and have them shipped to India where he can then go and add his "genetic material" at a fertility clinic that will then hire a surrogate for him to carry the zygote to term.
The cost for the surrogate alone is 3 to 5 thousand dollars. The clinic in India which can sort the fertilized eggs by sex if you wish will cost about one-tenth of what it would cost in the states. And the eggs will vary in cost but likely just a few thousand.
The process will cost between 10 and 20 thousand dollars. Which is a bargain when you consider how much it costs to support a stay at home wife for a year.
While there are several drawbacks to this plan the ultimate bonus is the government will never choose the mother's rights over your rights because the mother surrendered her rights before conception.
December 20th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Hmm, doesnt it mean that you owe child support to both the surrogate mother and the biological mother?
My boy, you need to think like a Family Law Judge!
December 21st, 2007 at 7:06 pm
No. The biological mother has already sign away her rights. The surrogate mother has no genetic rights so she too isn't an issue.
December 22nd, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Women already get a push present: a man who will go to work to support her as she stays home to raise her child (at least until she dumpus it in day-care).
December 31st, 2007 at 2:34 pm
[...] I discussed in Some Thoughts on the 'Push Presents' Now Expected From Expectant Fathers (Part I), I have mixed emotions about "push presents." I [...]
February 11th, 2008 at 10:14 am
[...] learn more, see my blog posts Some Thoughts on the 'Push Presents' Now Expected From Expectant Fathers (Part I) and (Part [...]
February 12th, 2008 at 9:00 am
I've read about this "push present" and it does seem like a beautiful gift for a mother to receive , to give a man a child. It strikes me as way over the top though. A man can work all his life supporting a family, working extra hours to fill the families needs and as we know in todays society, that has gotten more expensive every day. This will sound like trivial to some but a life time of shovelling the driveway in the cold, lighting the pilot light in the furnace in the cold, working all those extra hours for the family to afford things, for making the reasonable decisions and not the "think outside the box " decisions...lol...I like that one, stay with me here, what about being the one to always grab the Louisville and make sure that the bang we just heard wasn't some crook trying to break in, or current to me right now...it is freezing, I don't see her changing the flat tire in the truck...argh...it's cold out. Thats just a few things I've mentioned , but you know, I like my role in this relationship because she makes up in other ways. Keep in mind we don't have kids, I have an 18 year old(he knows more than all of us put together) and she gets along great with him. After a lifetime of this, I don't expect some gift when I'm done, or some idiot telling me that men shouldn't retire and work longer because they've caused so much grief....lol. You know, I've had kidney stones and one gall stone, like some women say, the pain is worse than child birth so I've already paid my dues there with not quite the same results and the stone wasn't quite a diamond. So men , hold your head high and JUST say "thank you dear, I love you so much for giving my our child".