The Guardian: Men 'Need More Equality at Home'
November 11th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.For women to have more equality at work, we (men) need more equality at home; in this struggle for equality, fathers and feminists are on the same side (parenthetical mine).
That's not quite a direct quotation from GlennSacks.com, but it's close. We've been saying the same thing for years and at long last this article chimes in (The Guardian, 11/8/09). Now, its writer Richard Reeves seems to think that the only things standing between British fathers and their children are unequal parental leave laws. Needless to say, important as those laws are, they're just the start.
Read his article and you'd never guess that feminist organizations are dead set against fathers' rights and fight tooth and nail against them. This very minute, feminist organizations in Australia are set to turn back the clock on shared parenting laws there and Canadian feminists are lobbying to prevent the Canadian Parliament from passing a shared parenting bill of their own. Reeves doesn't mention the fact.
He refers to legal barriers to paternal involvement with children this way:
But the current structure of maternity and paternity leave means that it still makes sense for the father to keep working. Pretty soon, as a result of the massive differential in the legal treatment of mothers and fathers, dad becomes the breadwinner – but not necessarily by choice.
Sadly, he seems unaware of the many ways in which the legal system separates fathers from children - the radically anti-father custody awards, the failure to enforce visitation, adoption without notice to the father, move-aways, paternity fraud, etc.
And he makes no mention of how fathers are routinely depicted in popular culture - again abetted by feminist organizations - as dangerous to children and incompetent at the simplest parental tasks.
So Reeves' article leaves a lot to be desired. But its heart is in the right place. Maybe I'm like the prisoner who's so used to a diet of bread and water that oatmeal seems like a luxury, but Reeves' simple admission that what benefits fathers in the nursery benefits mothers in the workplace seems like a godsend.
That simple, obvious concept strikes at the heart of the feminist plaint and reveals much. For when feminists oppose equally shared parenting or indeed any initiative that would increase paternal rights, they show their hand. They show the world that gender equality is not part of their agenda because if it were, they'd understand that the more time dads spend with kids, the freer mothers are to work, earn, save and advance at work.
But beyond simple intellectual inconsistency, feminist opposition to fathers' rights forces thinking people to ask "if not that, what is their goal?" To which I can only respond that they seem to seek the replacement of the fathers with government-subsidized childcare.
The history of radical feminism includes a broad and deep antipathy for the family. For decades they were quite frank about the matter. Now that 40% of births in the United States are to single mothers, and domestic violence legislation and the restraining orders that go along with it have become such an important part of family life, radical feminists have toned down the rhetoric. But their agenda is still in place and the type of deep connection between fathers and their children in which Richard Reeves so obviously believes is not on it.
There's a deep rift among feminists when it comes to the politics of the family. There are those who seek the greatest possible alienation of children from their fathers and there are those who seek the opposite. The rise of the fathers' rights movement will force those people to make a choice between greater father-child involvement and less.
Reeves believes in the former. I think most people do.
"));
19 queries. 0.365 seconds.
November 11th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
I liked the information presented and the overall message of the article, but I found the writing itself to be somewhat lacking. Maybe I'm being nit-picky, as I'm sure the author isn't an English professor, but the more well written a piece is, the more likely impact it tends to have.
That said, any open minded person can see the validity of the point Davis is making. Unfortunately, those controlling DV policy aren't very open minded.
November 11th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Disregard my comment above. It was meant for the article referenced in the "Mandatory Arrest in DV Cases Doesn't Work, but Still Promoted by DOJ" post.
November 11th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
But that's not what feminists... hell, even what women want.
Women want to be provided for. That's why women are hypergamous. Their desire for hypergamy is biologically driven.
Women, not only just feminists, don't really want gender equality. Therefore, this "showing that gender equality is not part of their agenda" won't mean a lick to anyone other than us.
November 11th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Add:
Now, if you REALLY want to wake women and make them think twice about the double-standards, direct them to this article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1226157/Vogue-editor-Alexandra-Shulman-asks-boss-hire-woman.html
November 11th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
"To which I can only respond that they seem to seek the replacement of the fathers with government-subsidized childcare."
That is where the feminist family law movement will continue to lead us.
The replacement of the father has been normalized, and the complete replacement of the father has become more common.
November 11th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
"The history of radical feminism includes a broad and deep antipathy for the family. "
I suggest that many of them hate men and religion as well.
Yes, radical feminists portray themselves as supporting "equality", but supporting equality for women is Orwellian. George Orwell wasn't praising the pigs when he wrote in Animal Farm that "some are more equal than others."
Equality is for all people.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
"...the freer mothers are to work, earn, save and advance at work."
I agree with Armegeddon that most women simply don't want to work. They want to go to college and find a man for sure. But most really have no interest in a career. The number of Mrs. degrees out there is simply staggering and proof positive of this point.
I would argue that most men would rather not work as well. My job sucks. I wish I was independently wealthy and would not have to go to work every day for sure. So I don't think this is some innate drive that is causing a shortage of career-minded women.
Another aspect of this is there still are many men out there who don't want women to work and have a career.
Here's the crux of the problem for men's rights as susinctly as I can put it - "ladies first". Girls and boys are taught many different ways that girls are special and deserve special treatment. The vast majority of both women and men don't have any thoughts whatsoever that men should be treated as well as women. By and large men are supposed to be men and "support" their families (including their wives). Despite the great sacrifices sole breadwinner men make for their families, according to many, being a stay-at-home mom is the "hardest job in the world". God I hate that saying.
The whole notion of "ladies first" needs to be challenged and dismantled before we get anywhere. When you treat someone like a Princess you get a Princess. When you teach someone to take care of a Princess you get a servant.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:21 am
Michael, I would suggest that much of the problem is simply that most people don't really believe in equality. Or at least, fewer people really believe in equality than claim to believe in equality. While it is perhaps too harsh to say that all egalitarians are frauds, it is fair to assume that any movement that chortles on too much about equality is suspect.
In How to Win Friends and Influence People, Dale Carnegie says that most people you meet will feel superior to you in some way, and that understanding how is the key to influencing them. Fancy that!
What a surprise that a movement that preaches equality is really based on the superiority of one group over another! Who woulda thought it?
November 12th, 2009 at 6:52 am
Champ Says:
"The whole notion of 'ladies first' needs to be challenged and dismantled before we get anywhere. When you treat someone like a Princess you get a Princess. When you teach someone to take care of a Princess you get a servant."
BINGO!!! IMHO, this is THE source of the majority of the problems that men in western society face. We will never have true equality as long as we continue to have this whole "ladies first" attitude.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Why would you believe in something that doesn't exist? Not trying to snark here, but you do realize that until men can give birth we can't even begin to discuss the possibility of equality between the sexes, right? Men and women are not equal/equivalent and there is no way to correct that until we are all hermaphrodites.
Actually, this is where "new history" lies. Feminism never was and never will be about equality. Feminism was about equal rights which is NOT equality unless there is also equal responsibilities (which there is not and which feminism will not discuss). Feminism, since it's inception, was about women becoming "more equal"
No, "ladies first" is not the problem. Again, men and women are not equal. The problem is the combination of "ladies first" + "ladies are equal" which = "ladies are more equal"
That's the problem. Back when it was only "ladies first" without "ladies equal" then there were offsets to the ideas of putting women first which resulted in something much closer to equality between gender power and gender worth which has been blown out of the water today in our quests for equality which does not and can not exist.
November 12th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Armageddon Says:
"Back when it was only 'ladies first' without 'ladies equal' then there were offsets to the ideas of putting women first which resulted in something much closer to equality between gender power and gender worth which has been blown out of the water today in our quests for equality which does not and can not exist."
I agree with the first part, the whole notion of "ladies first" arose from a time when women had few if any "rights" but were given many privileges and held a special place in society based upon nothing more than their gender. Basically, they were a protected and sheltered class within western society.
With the advent of industrialization, women told us that they wanted to have the same "rights" that men do and that society should treat them as equals to men. I am more than happy to take them at their word and treat them just the same as everybody else. But you CANNOT and NEVER WILL have equal treatment while trying to play the "ladies first" card. I will no longer play that game and I suspect that most men of the younger generation feel the same way.
Are men and women physical equals? Of course not! But even among people of the same gender, there are vast physical differences between people. This physical difference does not and should not affect the basis for equal treatment by the law.
November 12th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Shared parenting may be ok for males who are out of work but otherwise be very careful.
Firms will not employ men that want the same time off and benefits as women get.The latter have very good organisations behind them,men have nothing.A man that gives his job up to look after kids is asking for trouble,he will find it very difficult to get another one
if his partner changes her mind or is made redundant.,and at that point,if she wants to become primary caregiver she will have no problem leaving him high and dry with the possibility(quite strong) that she will not want him living with her either.A man who earns nothing is a millstone round the neck of a female,women do not marry men who want to stay at home.Enough has been said about visitation rights and alimony.Fighting for total equality in all areas is the way to go,otherwise you are just giving in to feminism,this is why the feminists in armageddons A.shulman's article are asking why the men can't stay home.Cart after the horse please.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
"No, "ladies first" is not the problem. Again, men and women are not equal. The problem is the combination of "ladies first" + "ladies are equal" which = "ladies are more equal""
Men and women are not equal (or the same) for sure. There is just no reason, however, other than cultural bias (ladies first) that men and women can't be treated equally under the law. This is what I mean by "equal".
"...the whole notion of "ladies first" arose from a time when women had few if any "rights" "
Yes. This was a charitable, noble endevour. Men ruled. Now women get the charity and have rights, including some for their very own. The genie is not going back in the bottle for women's rights. Again, we need to challenge the charitable "ladies first" mindset.
"women told us that they wanted to have the same "rights" that men do and that society should treat them as equals to men. "
Note that many early feminists were the daughters of families in the upper echelons of society. They wanted to be doctors, lawyers, and business women. I can guarantee you my great-grandmothers who were wives of miners had absolutely no interest in switching places with their husbands.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Can you name a society where women are not a protected and sheltered class compared to the men in that society?
Yes, but no. They wanted the same rights as men, but DID NOT want to be treated equally. Again, equal rights without equal responsibilities IS NOT equality.
But what if the physical (biological) differences cause many social inequalities?
The thing is, men and women CANNOT be equal. There is no possible way for them to be equal. Due to the factors of women getting pregnant, male vs female sex drives, and other biological factors; men and women have different social values and different levels of social protection. Women will ALWAYS be more socially protected than men are. Women will NEVER reach the same level of disposability as men.
That means, even if we were able to set up a magical realm where men and women had the same legal rights, that would only exist for a "instant" in civilization timeline. Because of the extra social protections that women receive, Equal rights + more social protection => more legal rights + more social protection => you get the pattern here until society can no longer handle the inequality and therefore collapses. If women have equal legal rights, the social protections they enjoy over and above men will cause the legislature to protect women more than men, and eventually the laws will be in women's favor.
So, in effect, what I'm telling you is that the goal you desire (men and women to be treated equally under the law) isn't possible. As soon as that state is reached, it will morph into women receiving greater protection and greater privilege under the law almost instantly after equilibrium is reached.
Men and women cannot exist in a state of legal equality as long as they exist in a state of biological inequality. To seek a state of legal equality is actually to seek a state of female superiority.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
"Can you name a society where women are not a protected and sheltered class compared to the men in that society?"
Even today, most women who live outside the western world are NOT a protected class.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Armageddon Says:
"To seek a state of legal equality is actually to seek a state of female superiority."
Which is pretty much what we currently have in most western countries. But we are gradually starting to see some changes here in the US.
We are already a nation that is a melting pot of people from different nations and different cultures who have different social values and yet we strive to treat everyone the same, regardless of these differences. Are we always successful at treating people equally? No, history tells us that we have failed many times at this but that hasn't kept us from trying and gradually, little by little we have gotten better at it. I see the current state of affairs as simply another stumbling block to overcome.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Compared to the men in that society?
Name an example. Explain to me how the women of that society have it worse than the men of that society.
What Middle East society (which I'm sure you are going to use as an example) sends it's 10 year old girls off to the battlefield like Iraq, Iran, and others have done to their 10 year old boys?
Compare the average women of that society to the average man of that society, and honestly try to tell me that the woman is not a protected class.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
In the middle east women can't even initiate divorce and have very little rights whatsoever. I'm not sure how many 10-year-old boys have been to war in Iraq and Iran. Saying that 10-year old girls aren't going to the front in the desert hardly makes middle eastern women a protected class.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Champ-
So your argument is that a woman's right to divorce is more important than a man's right to not be conscripted into war, and due to that women are not more protected than men are in Middle Eastern society?
Um... yeah... sure...
Again, you are just spouting out "These women don't have right X" without making ANY comparison to the men in the society... in fact you brushed the disadvantages that men in that society face under the rug. You didn't even consider it.
Listen, I'll freely admit that there are tons of rights that Middle Eastern men have which Middle Eastern women don't. But what you have to ALSO recognize is that there are a ton responsibilities which Middle Eastern men have which Middle Eastern women don't. When you look at BOTH the rights and the responsibilities you'll find that even Middle Eastern society favors women.
Western society protects women by absolving them of their responsibilities while giving them rights, or "freedom of". Many other societies protect women by reducing their rights and their responsibilities, or "freedom from". In both cases, women are a protected class, just the protection is done via different methodologies.
And, frankly, their system is a heck of a lot closer to "equality" than our system is. Women still have the biologically granted greater social value, but their cultures grant men greater legal rights to compensate. Now if only it didn't come with the oppressive religion....
November 12th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Champ,
It is likely that you have been told a whole lot of lies about the middle east. The grass is greener on the other side of the fence, and women are always oppressed on the other side of the fence as well. I invite you to visit the so-called women repressing cultures to understand the situation for yourself. Suffice to say - things are not as you have been told... they never are!
November 12th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Champ also note that those that have never left the middle eastern culture, also believe that the west oppresses its women by socially forcing them to be "immodest" in clothing and to make them work for a living (something that only men are obligated to in their society). There is apparently an international chivalry where men try to do well for women on the other side of the world, without knowing the ground realities of the situation
November 12th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Thanks for the comments guys. I'll certainly consider what you're saying. I'm most interested in the US which is where I live. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here on the whole "ladies first" thing although I really don't think we're that far off.
I want to leave you guys with an interesting link to a book called Wives Without Husbands. It discusses reform in marriage 100 years ago that essentially began to turn marriage into a welfare system for women. The "ball and chain" was born out of this reform. I'm not sure one can appreciate the "ladies first" effect or what marriage really is today without learning this history.
http://books.google.com/books?id=TQDpzjR92loC&dq=wives+without+husbands&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=PDGxWNTX2x&sig=Uv_ywnlGCO-wViqP1NlozGjUvxs&hl=en&ei=jsn8Sv71PMrdnAeckvWSCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CA0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false
November 13th, 2009 at 7:25 am
Feminists do NOT want equality - they want *selective equality*.
If equality benefits women, they want (demand) it. If equality benefits men (e.g. fathers rights) they actively fight against it.
Maternal gatekeeping is an issue largely committed by women against fathers, I've experienced it twice myself firsthand -yet rather than feminists admitting there is a problem with some women's attitude towards men and children, they prefer to blame men alone.
November 13th, 2009 at 11:24 am
I think the difference is that we both agree that equality cannot be achieved without getting rid of "ladies first", but you think that notion can be eliminated while I think it is biologically granted.
As long as the biological differences grant men the sex drive with the more urgent need which has more control over their thoughts (research the Epididymis Gland, women have nothing like it), and women are the limiting factor of reproduction; men will always pander to women to obtain sex and societies will treat the class which increases their numbers as a less disposable class of people.
In other words, there will be no hope of male-female equality until there are sex bots and artificial wombs; and those technologies become socially acceptable to use. And even after that point, it will take many generations to undo the programing ("Ladies first") which has assisted several civilizations survival rates for millions of years.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Armageddon,
I'll grant you we may never see true equality. You make some great points.
I geuss I consider what we have in the western world today as "ladies first" on steroids. If we look at much of the world today and even in the west historically, there is a ton of room to roll back our charitable welfare for women.
Declining marital rates (and the general murder and mayhem you get when you enslave men in civil marriage) are telling us that men are pushing back. To sustain the family unit modern civilization is used to the rules will need to change. And I believe they will. It's easy to be negative and I know it's hard to tell sometimes but progress is actually being made.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Well of course it is. It is a combination of biologically granted "ladies first" + legal equality which becomes "ladies first" + legal superiority... a superiority that will continue to expand and grow until the society can no longer function under that level of inequality. Like I explained a few posts above, we cannot have legal equality with social inequality because it WILL lead to "ladies first" on steroids.
Unlike the inequalities of the ruling class over the commoners (think of a few centuries ago in France before heads started to roll), is is very difficult for men to have class anger against women. Again, they have biologically granted greater value, and as such it is much more difficult to bite the hand that supplies you sex and children. Because of that, our society will handle a much greater deal of inequality male vs female than it would inequality between any other two near-majority classes. That massive inequality between two very large groups will cripple the society and eventually break it.
In short, to seek equality between men and women (at this point without the technology which can render women's biological greater value moot) is to seek the death of the society. Not only is it unattainable, it will cause the society to collapse.
I see that another way entirely. I see it as men simply not needing marriage anymore, so they don't seek it. Traditionally, marriage granted sex to the man and finances to the woman. Now men can get sex easily without marriage, so they have no need for it (nor do the men have a need to achieve to the point of becoming "marriage material" which is why female sexual freedom is another destructive element within society). Much like men must repress their violence for the good of society, women must repress their promiscuity for the good of society.
It's not that men are rejecting marriage, it's that they have no need for it. Men are already obtaining what they traditionally did (sex), cannot obtain other things which were traditionally granted under any means (rights to children), and that's why men don't need marriage. Women still do want/need marriage, because what they traditionally obtained (financial security) is not yet guaranteed by a non-marriage relationship, but we are getting there.
Yes, we need to sell marriage to men for the good of society. But we've already stripped the benefits of marriage away (the "right" to his wife's sexuality, "ownership" of the children from marriage) and women have made sex so cheap that there are little benefit and massive cost to the marriage contract for men. The only real change which can save society is to put patriarchy back into place!
I don't believe they will. I feel it's more like pandora's box. Again, a system of equality cannot work and will kill the society, so the only solution we have available is to revert back to more traditional roles.
Do women want to go back to that and lose the many rights they've been granted?
Do men want to go back to only obtaining sex after working themselves hard to a place of accomplishment and getting married?
Both sides are selling the long term future of the society in order to gain short-term benefits.
I see a few things here and there, but overall we have continued to march even deeper into the realm of female superiority. We will continue to do so until we reach the state of economic collapse (my opinion of which type of collapse we will face here in the US). At that point, women will sell "equality" down the river to gain protection of men from the now-unsafe outside world. Women only desire "equality" when the situation is relatively safe... without that safety, they're more than willing to let men risk their lives while the women reap the rewards.
And that's why feminism is a self-correcting social problem. Unfortunately for the men in the society and the small percentage of women who didn't buy in, the correction is the death of the society which attempts to find "equality" where there is none to be found.