MRAs and Feminism: Finding a Space for Fathers

Author and scholar Andrea Doucet suggests a new way to understand the often overheated debate between men’s rights groups and feminists.

Ten years ago when I was listening to, and writing about, the stories of stay-at-home dads and single fathers, many men asked me why it was that I—a woman, a feminist—was so interested in the lives of fathers. I was continually asked: Don’t feminists typically study mothers? What does feminism have to do with fatherhood? Isn’t feminism about women, after all?

My belief that men’s stories matter to feminism goes back at least 20 years, to when I was writing my doctoral dissertation at Cambridge University. Politically and theoretically, I came to the view that fathering and feminism fit together through the work of many excellent feminist scholars, most notably philosopher Sara Ruddick, whose writing moved me towards believing that fathering was an incredibly important focus for feminist scholarship. I am thinking especially of her argument that “the most revolutionary change we can make in the institution of motherhood is to include men in every aspect of childcare,” as well as her view that mothering work, when taken up by both women and men, would lead to “radically recasting … the power-gender roles.” Ruddick’s book, Maternal Thinking, and her view that “men could mother” led me directly into my research on men and mothering and my book Do Men Mother?

My story is also informed by that age-old feminist maxim that the personal is political: while I was reading feminist theory in the Cambridge library, my views on feminism and fathering also emerged from the kitchen and “nursery” of the student flat that I shared with my husband and three small children.

♦◊♦

The fit between feminism and fathering has become a taken-for-granted part of my work and my life. But I was recently forced to revisit this combination as I followed a recent debate here at the Good Men Project Magazine between men’s rights activists (MRAs), including fathers’ rights groups, and their critics.

What struck me in that debate? Aside from the unbridled anger in some of the blog posts and in many of the comments, I was especially intrigued by the two “F-words” that appeared at the very top of the MRA’s list of their 10 main issues: “Feminism” was #2. “Fathering” was #1.

Yet the “feminism” and “fathering” depicted in that list, and in many of the comments, were framed in such narrow ways. The only fathering referred to was that of separated and divorced fathers (especially non-custodial fathers). Meanwhile, feminism was thinly presented by MRA contributor Zeta Male in his overarching statement that “feminism has harmed men.”

♦◊♦

As a professor who has taught gender studies and courses on men and masculinities for over 15 years (and co-authored a recent book on researching gender relations), I know that there are three, or even four, distinct “waves” of feminist theory and activism, as well as infinite manifestations of feminism(s) that cross generations, ethnicity, race, class, culture, sexuality, and a wide range of thematic issues. Feminism remains diverse, complex, and continually evolving.

Yes, there is a small segment of feminism, particularly some strands of radical feminism, that posit women’s interests as separate, or opposed to, those of men. But a great deal of feminist theory and activism does focus on men and masculinity, and the specific gendered challenges that men face, especially in their roles as fathers.

There are, however, particular sites where this relationship is strained—and severely tested. One of the greatest challenges in holding together fathering and feminism occurs when studying divorce, custody issues, and other painful matters that arise when partnerships between women and men turn sour and dissolve. Put simply, it is more difficult for feminists to stand up for men when a “sister” is going through a nasty divorce.

Such conflicts, however, constitute only a small part of the fathering and feminism landscape. Yet, in spite of some thoughtful contributions, much of the debate at the Good Men Project Magazine gave me the distinct impression that fathering and feminism are irreconcilable.

I want to add a corrective to that view. I also want to outline two strategies that I have used in my work to promote active fathering while also keeping a respectful distance from the more extreme fathers’ rights groups.

Next: Understanding Angry Debate

Pages: 1 2

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Andrea Doucet

Andrea Doucet is Professor of Sociology at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada and the author of the award-winning book, Do Men Mother?. She is the Editor of the international journal Fathering and is writing a book on breadwinning moms and their male partners (tentatively) titled The Bread and Roses Project: Breadwinning Moms, Caregiving Dads and a New “Problem with No Name”. Andrea has been married for 25 years to the same good man (who makes her laugh almost every day) and they have shared the parenting of three daughters (ages 21, and 17 year-old twins). Find Andrea on Twitter.

Comments

  1. Replace this woman with a man who left his children, and then perhaps came back to be part of their lives. Would anybody blink? Indeed, he would be praised for coming back.
    Or would he have been written off as just another deadbeat?

    Most women are still held to a social norm—one that is etched in their everyday lives and in the social institutions (work, family, schools, communities) that make up those lives—that they must take on the primary responsibility for children. For most men, this remains a choice rather than an obligation.
    While the norm for women you speak of here is true I don’t think its quite as simple as saying its a choice for men. If it really was a choice the things you mention here (Women are judged when they care too little. Men are judged when they care too much.
    There is suspicion when men show too much interest in other people’s children. The opposite is true for women.
    Men still feel some discrimination in playgroups. Women do in boardrooms.) wouldn’t happen when they made that “choice”. Its like when women “choose” to go for the boardroom (where the social norm is that men are obligated to work outside the home). I don’t think you can call it a choice when the norms in place actively work against you in cases like those.

    But your point does stand that there is a lot of contention between these two groups that I think is getting in the way of progress (I hold the belief that if MRAs and feminists got on a united front shit would really start jumping off).

    • I think there’s a lot of convergence between what MRAs and feminists want, ultimately.

      • Not really. To my knowledge, there are no feminist organizations that support shared parenting, actively provide support to fathers, help fathers access to the same social programs available to mothers, invest in maintaining fathers’ bonds with their children. To the contrary, the most prominent feminist organization, the National Organization of Women, actively opposes the efforts of father’s rights groups like Fathers and Families.

        In my opinion, the problem is the ideological rhetoric feminists hold to and the justified anger men’s rights activists harbor towards feminists. The latter can get resolved by men’s rights activists controlling their anger regardless of how obnoxious or insensitive feminists behave. The former presents a bigger problem because the issue lies in beliefs. People generally do not change their beliefs, which is what feminists need to do in order to make peace with men’s rights activists. It is akin to Christians and the gay community. If Christians want to reach out to that community, they need to stop the “You’re all sinners who’ll burn in hell” rhetoric. The same goes for feminists and their theories. Feminist must stop telling men that every problem men face is men’s own fault, and they need to acknowledge that in many instances feminists and feminism have harmed men.

        If neither will do that — and it does not appear either will — they will never see eye to eye. Instead, they will talk past each other and ignore the legitimate problems the other side mentions and rattle off their preconceived explanations, kind of like Doucet did in her article.

        • Feminism is an objection to patriarchy, not to men.

          Feminists do support equal parenting, just not organizations like “Fathers and Families” that omit “Mothers” from even the name of the organization.

          Many, many men do well with feminism and get equal parenting. They don’t get there by writing women out of the picture and failing to support women’s equality and inclusiveness in the political economy, however. See books/blogs/organizations by Tony Porter, Marc Vachon, Kyle Pruett, Stefan Poulter, John Badalment, Michael Kimmel, Joshua Coleman, Jeremy Adam Smith, Alan Johnson, William Pollack.

          I think MRAs problem is that they fantasize they speak for all men, when they don’t, and they demonize feminism, when they don’t understand what feminism is about. They should call themselves “Patriarchy advocates” or “Men’s privilege advocates” or “Authoritarian Father Initiative.” These would be more accurate descriptors.

          • Feminists do support equal parenting, just not organizations like “Fathers and Families” that omit “Mothers” from even the name of the organization.
            So does that mean that feminism should rename itself to be more inclusive of men?

            Many, many men do well with feminism and get equal parenting. They don’t get there by writing women out of the picture and failing to support women’s equality and inclusiveness in the political economy, however.
            So falling in with feminism is a requirement for equal parenting? I agree they should not demonize it (but given some of my own experiences I can understand why some of the do, to an extent) however in the eyes of some its critics they feel that they are being expected to support women’s equality while at the same time denying their own equality. If we want to be as all inclusive as they say then its going to take true inclusiveness and not this practice of deciding who is “worthy” of attention based on gender (which seems to happen on both sides).

            I think MRAs problem is that they fantasize they speak for all men, when they don’t, and they demonize feminism, when they don’t understand what feminism is about. They should call themselves “Patriarchy advocates” or “Men’s privilege advocates” or “Authoritarian Father Initiative.” These would be more accurate descriptors.
            A common misdirect. It seems that everytime someone criticizes anything about feminism it must be because they don’t understand what feminism is about. Now I’m not saying that those among MRAs that demonize feminism are always right but simply claiming “they don’t understand it” doesn’t explain away all the criticisms.

    • Even women are finally speaking out against the hypocrisy of feminism: http://goo.gl/f4pXo

  2. The graphic depiction of men with the angry photo mars this attempt to remove the emotionalism from the debate between feminists and men’s issues advocates. Can’t we have a screaming feminist too, or a depiction of a debate between equals. Men are still seen as “the other” on the Good Men Project website, and the use of this photo confirms it.

  3. I think who MRAs are really mad at are social conservatives like Kay Hymowitz, Phyllis Schlafly, etc. These are the women who want Balkanized sex roles and don’t relate to men.

    My sense is that MRAs don’t really understand feminism. They have had bad experiences with women and, because feminists appear to have some confidence and to speak out, feminists also appear to be strong enough to take some bashing or fighting – as opposed to women like Hymowitz or Schlafly who will run for cover or defer. MRAs can then vent their rage at those women; it doesn’t solve the MRAsr fundamental problems, however, of not knowing how to deal with women as equals and not having access to the full emotional range they need to be good parents. They apparently also lack any sort of sexual knowledge or experiecne beyond trying to be some kind of “alpha male.”

    This is why Sacks names his group “Fathers and Families” rather than “Fathers, Mothers and Familes,” for example. He needs to write women out of the picture – except for “feminists,” whom he perceives as a convenient foil for everything bad that has happened in his life.

    • This is why Sacks names his group “Fathers and Families” rather than “Fathers, Mothers and Familes,” for example. He needs to write women out of the picture – except for “feminists,” whom he perceives as a convenient foil for everything bad that has happened in his life.
      So, when are feminists going to get around to renaming themselves in order to reflect their constant assurances that they are trying to help people on all sides of the gender situation?

      • I can understand that a theory that has “fem” in its name may make some men feel not included – or that such theory’s aim of deconstruction “patri”archy may seem like a deconstruction of a man as a person.

        The way I believe some men get around this is to say they are “pro-feminist men” or “egalitarians.”

        Many people also refer to deconstruction of patriarchy as humanism. The only problem with this is that it omits the need to grapple with differences between people, not just sexes but between sexes, and also between people of different races, class origins, sexual orientations, etc. issues. This is especially a problem with regard to hard-wired difference, such as that fetuses are developed into babies inside and causing changes – sometimes serious hardships – to women’s bodies – although many men do plenty of carrying of babies outside their bodies once the babies are born. :)

        • I can understand that a theory that has “fem” in its name may make some men feel not included – or that such theory’s aim of deconstruction “patri”archy may seem like a deconstruction of a man as a person.
          You know I’m betting there are men who are turned off in the manner you say here but that’s not my case. What turns me off about femnism are some of the people who take up the title and name. Sure there are good ones in the movement but the negativity I’ve seen, felt, and heard from other people (as well that negativity going unchallenged) just turns me off from the label.

          But at the end of the day regardless of the name its going to be the actions and words of its members that turns people on or off. That’s how I will in some cases agree with feminists while at the same time disagreeing with “conscious” or “enlightened” men. I mean according to some the use of “fem” should turn me off automatically while the use of “men” should turn me on. Which is why like I said there are people who get their mad on at the site of the words feminist and MRA that does not fully explain why people disagree with memebers of those groups.

          Oh one more question. Despite the fact that they are called “Fathers and Families” would it interest/surprise you that Sacks has mentioned before who they had to call out/turn away men who thought they were going to back them simply because they were men? If feminism should get a fair shake despite its title them MRAs and Fathers and Families and National Organization for Women, etc…. should too right?

          • I think the reason MRAs and “Fathers and Families” is having trouble is because they don’t get a fair shake when they are not able to articulate a workable model for the equal parenting they want and when they distance themselves from pro-feminist or egalitarian men so much.

            I do think there is an argument that men have sometimes been not seen as good parents, but it was primarily MALE judges, lawmakers, clergy etc who saw the mother’s role as primary and wrote this into law. So it is not correct to lambaste women, or “feminists,” for the fact many men either lack the personal skills necessary to be good, equal parents or who do not get equal parenting judgements in their divorce.

            NOW is more concerned with women’s status in the political economy than with parenting issues. Our Senate/House is still only 20% women and we’ve had no woman President. They would perhaps do better changing their name as more parity is obtained but right now they are still working on some structural barriers in the political economy that are designed, very specifically, to raise women’s status.

            They are also trying to allow people – both men and women – who want patriarchal marriage to have that choice if the want it – but they are just saying that once you make that choice you need to live with the consequences of it – unless you perhaps can work your way out of it by doing to the hard work of changing the trajectory that a patriarchal marriage is on – where the father is responsible for money and the mother for parenting.

            • I do think there is an argument that men have sometimes been not seen as good parents, but it was primarily MALE judges, lawmakers, clergy etc who saw the mother’s role as primary and wrote this into law. So it is not correct to lambaste women, or “feminists,” for the fact many men either lack the personal skills necessary to be good, equal parents or who do not get equal parenting judgements in their divorce.
              Well since we are talking about Fathers and Families actually a lot of that crowd does disparage the courts. Some of that lambasting of women is over those that willfully take part in the problem (if I’m not mistaken this is similar to those among feminists who don’t go hold today’s responsible the system we have but do call out those who perpetuate it). As for feminists some of their lambasting comes from the assurances that they are the ones that are helping men while at the same time not backing those words.

              No I’m not saying that all feminists are claming to support men while not backing the claim (in fact think Clarisse Thorn is a very good example of a feminist that says she wants to help men and actually backs that shit up). But there are those that do and they seem to be able to do it free of consequence.

              NOW is more concerned with women’s status in the political economy than with parenting issues. Our Senate/House is still only 20% women and we’ve had no woman President. They would perhaps do better changing their name as more parity is obtained but right now they are still working on some structural barriers in the political economy that are designed, very specifically, to raise women’s status.
              So, why is it they are actively opposing shared parenting? If anything getting men through the parenting door goes hand in hand with getting women into the boardroom. Regardless of the parent/boardroom split children still have to be raised. So for NOW to actively disregard equality for men while demanding equality for women seems a bit counter productive (in fact you even say the same about men here, “Many, many men do well with feminism and get equal parenting. They don’t get there by writing women out of the picture and failing to support women’s equality and inclusiveness in the political economy, however.”

              So men’s need to work with women’s advocates but women’s advocates are fine on their own?

            • You are ignoring the fact that the system was set up by men. Until women have full say along with men’s say in how the system works – and have that say at the very top levels politically and economically – I think there is justification for NOW to represent that it is advocating for women in the political economy (which, as I said, is it’s primary focus) and against authoritarian, non-egalitarian fathering to the extent it gets involved in the parenting issue.

              I think that MRAs would do better to focus on men in power as much as they do on women they perceive as exclusionary. This refusal/denial to focus on patriarchal men -such as Justices Scalia and Thomas – and on patriarchal policies – and on holding men accountable as much as you hold women accountable- is what makes you outliers that are not respected.

              The fighting that MRAs do is just not the way for them to get what they want. There is no negotiation, no reciprocity (other than the reciprocity of fighting), no recognition of dependent children’s needs (just the father’s rights and his own exclusion). Children need parents who can focus on their needs and set aside their own. By definition, “Fathers and Families” is just focusing on the fathers’ needs. This is why these men did not get and cannot get equal parenting, while other men who can focus on others’ needs, empathize with them, negotiate, reciprocate.

              In other words, the courts that rule against these men are protecting children, more than they are women.

            • Goddamn autorefresh.

              You are ignoring the fact that the system was set up by men.
              I’m not ignoring because that’s not true. To think that this system was set up by men (much less for the benefit of men) requires ignoring the scores of men that are harmed by this system, or at least ignoring their pains and trying to scrap up any benefits they have and highlight them. No this system was set up by a small fraction of men and they are only looking out for themselves. If its not right to monolith women and feminists then its not fair to do the same to men.

              Until women have full say along with men’s say in how the system works – and have that say at the very top levels politically and economically – I think there is justification for NOW to represent that it is advocating for women in the political economy (which, as I said, is it’s primary focus) and against authoritarian, non-egalitarian fathering to the extent it gets involved in the parenting issue.
              So how exactly does that justify actively advocating against men that want to be the responsible fathers that people are supposedly looking for? Time and time again I hear people whine about “where are the fathers?”, “men need to step”, and so forth. But then those same people are dead silent when faced with men who are trying to fulfill those roles.

              And what’s “authoritarian, non-egalitarian” about shared parenting, where the parents share the ups, downs, responsibilities, and rights of raising children?

              I think that MRAs would do better to focus on men in power as much as they do on women they perceive as exclusionary. This refusal/denial to focus on patriarchal men -such as Justices Scalia and Thomas – and on patriarchal policies – and on holding men accountable as much as you hold women accountable- is what makes you outliers that are not respected.
              Its good to see that you, unlike a lot of defenders of women, seem to actually want to hold women responsible for their part in the system that burdens us.

              The fighting that MRAs do is just not the way for them to get what they want. There is no negotiation, no reciprocity (other than the reciprocity of fighting), no recognition of dependent children’s needs (just the father’s rights and his own exclusion).
              Considering how they are treated for being MRAs (not too different from feminists I might add) I kinda don’t blame them for their ways, to an extent of course. There are those among them that actually are looking out for more than just fathers. And even here where the apprent goal is to help men become good men they are told that they are all woman haters and if they really wanted equality they would embrace feminism (which pretty much requires acting like feminism is nothing but sunshine and rainbows, when its nothing but).

              Children need parents who can focus on their needs and set aside their own. By definition, “Fathers and Families” is just focusing on the fathers’ needs.

              This is why these men did not get and cannot get equal parenting, while other men who can focus on others’ needs, empathize with them, negotiate, reciprocate.
              This is a big leap to presume that such men do not exhibit these qualities just because they are MRAs. I may as well say women aren’t getting in the boardroom because they don’t work hard enough. There are societal forces at work against those hard working women just as there are against those empathetic men who try to reciprocate and negotiate.

            • “No this system was set up by a small fraction of men and they are only looking out for themselves.”

              Then, again, focus on them as much as you do on “evil feminists.”

              One of the definitions that psychologists use in diagnosing and treating male perpetrators of domestic violence is an inability to argue, fight or discuss with other men, or hold other men accountable, and a preoccupation with violent thought and action toward women as a general category.

              “There are societal forces at work against those hard working women just as there are against those empathetic men who try to reciprocate and negotiate”

              Yes, those societal forces are usually called “patriarchy” and feminism, broadly defined, is about deconstructing those societal forces.

            • Then, again, focus on them as much as you do on “evil feminists.”
              Sure. Now if only those “innocent feminists” would practice what they preach and stop lumping men together with statements like that…

              Yes, those societal forces are usually called “patriarchy” and feminism, broadly defined, is about deconstructing those societal forces.
              Yeah those forces are called patriarchy, which by the name leaves out forces that harm men, well at least until they are useful for feminists. As for that broad definition of feminism I believe that. However as many have said a movement is more than its broad definitions. Which is why you have mean feminists and reasonable MRAs as well has reasonable feminists and mean MRAs (although there are people on both sides that act like only one set of those exist).

              One of the definitions that psychologists use in diagnosing and treating male perpetrators of domestic violence is an inability to argue, fight or discuss with other men, or hold other men accountable, and a preoccupation with violent thought and action toward women as a general category.
              Pardon me but what’s your point here? (I’m thinking of a response but depending on what you mean to convey it may not fit.)

            • “You are ignoring the fact that the system was set up by men. ”
              You are ignoring your assumption that a system set up by men would necessarily benefit men. Men set up war, such a huge benefit to men.

            • Reader:
              NOW is more concerned with women’s status in the political economy than with parenting issues.

              Not true. NOW was concerned enough for various state branches to issue action alerts in every state in which Shared Parenting legislation was pending.

              NOW takes an ACTIVELY anti-father (and by extension anti-child) custody position.
              Equal parenting time for fathers is not going to be addressed with some kind of kumbaiya bs with feminists, but an active opposition against a movement that has revealed itself to not be egalitarian at all, but supremacist.

            • Anonymous says:

              Gloria Steinem, one of the most famous advocates of NOW, made a very controversial statement many, many years ago that men are just as capable of being good parents as women are. She suggested that the idea that mothers are naturally more competent parents is actually holding women back. It’s keeping them in the home and stuck with the main responsibility for childrearing. She argues that in the cases where men have been left to be single parents they do just as well as women do.

              You’ll have to take my word that I am not in the habit of reproducing the arguments of Gloria Steinem. I don’t consider myself a feminist, and I disagree with her on a lot of things, but in this case there’s a great bit of wisdom here that could help both men and women get what they want out of life. I hope even the most diehard anti-feminist can agree that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

              Maybe Steinem and NOW have moved on and this was always a minor point, I don’t know, but it seems like place of mutual benefit.

  4. Clark Kent says:

    It took two pages for the author of this article to basically say women are still favored when it comes to parental rights. Especially after the dissolution of a marriage.

    I just don’t think a feminist who prescribes to whatever tract of feminist ideology (no matter how ‘liberal’ they believe they are) can acknowledge men as being disadvantaged in any aspect of society.

    “There are, however, particular sites where this relationship is strained—and severely tested. One of the greatest challenges in holding together fathering and feminism occurs when studying divorce, custody issues, and other painful matters that arise when partnerships between women and men turn sour and dissolve. Put simply, it is more difficult for feminists to stand up for men when a “sister” is going through a nasty divorce.”

    The above paragraph is an obvious indication that Men’s Rights or more specifically Father’s Rights isn’t a priority for feminist (which I don’t think anybody would expect it to be), but also that activism for men’s rights are not even in the best interest of the Feminist Movement.

    So my question is why is it that “more Feminism” is constantly being promoted as the solution to men’s issues (especially on this site)?

    I believe that extremist on both sides of the discussion (MRA’s and Feminist) are disproportionately represented on this site. However, I just can’t understand how any person can find any logic behind the assumption that Feminism in and of itself can realistically be a viable option for protecting the right’s of men in this situation.

    • The way feminism helps men get equal parenting rights is by getting them access to their emotional range, adult communication skills, awareness of social/economic/political systems, etc that they need to be good parents. The MRAs need to step away from their misplaced loyalty to authoritarian fathering to get there, though.

      This author does appear to have a bias against men in custody disputes. The bias may be justified when organizations like “Fathers and Families” omit the word “mother” from the name.

      As I posted above, there are many men who get equal parenting. I suspect “MRAs” tend not to get it because they see themselves as “alpha men” and tend to use women; women then use them right back.

      If you set up your marriage on the patriarchal model – where the man is the primary contact with the political economy and does not learn parenting skills or do half the unpaid work of caring for children – you cannot be surprised when the court system then creates a divorce settlement that mirrors that.

      If you set your marriage/family up in an egalitarian (two earning, two parenting, both parents do relatively equal amounts of unpaid work) model, then any divorce will more likely mirror that. Of course, these marriages/families tend not to end up in divorce court in the first place, as a recent Pew Research Study found.

      • Clark Kent says:

        “This author does appear to have a bias against men in custody disputes. The bias may be justified when organizations like “Fathers and Families” omit the word “mother” from the name.”

        So if you acknowledge that the author has this bias (and describes herself as a feminist) wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that she and any organization of like minded persons such as herself would have a bias collectively?

        Why is it a sin for Father’s and Families (which I admittedly know nothing about) to have a bias but when it comes to Feminist Organizations having biases as well as it’s own agendas it’s not an issue?

        Also, if Feminist organizations can have the SAME CAPACITY to harbor a bias how come THAT doesn’t justify the existence of organizations such as Father’s and Families?

        This is the crux of my initial statement. You can’t expect a Feminist organization or ideology to realistically promote Father’s rights because 1) They have their own biases and 2) like I said NO FEMINIST can wrap their mind around men being fundamentally disadvantaged in any sort of way.

        Again, I am not opposed to Feminism if its purpose is to in fact promote a level playing field. Especially where women are without a doubt treated unfairly due to their sex. However, I find it a bit insulting to insinuate that feminism is the cure to all of society’s ills when that clearly isn’t its intended purpose.

        • “So if you acknowledge that the author has this bias (and describes herself as a feminist) wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that she and any organization of like minded persons such as herself would have a bias collectively?”

          No, it is not appropriate to “collectivize” or generalize bias against men’s parenting abilities or commitment to all “feminists.”

          Especially in Gen-X and younger women, there are a lot of women who support feminist desconstruction of patriarchy who recognize men have the capacity to be good and equal parents. That’s one of the aims of deconstructing patriarchy in fact – to recognize and support a healthy paternal connection with children.

          I suspect one of the problems you may be having is the word “feminist.” If someone is a male, he thinks supporting or even studying a theory that has “fem” in its name is somehow denying his sex? That is not the case. To get around this problem, many men identify as “pro-feminist men.”

          Feminism is ultimately humanism, I believe, but it took its name from the fact that men were privileged in patriarchy (except a few princess-type women or other women married to high status men) so women were more motivated to seek change in patriarchy and thus worked very hard, for many years, to untangle it intellectually, in the political economy and in the domestic realm.

          • Just wanted to clarify that when I say “women were more motivated to seek change in patriarchy and thus worked very hard, for many years, to untangle it intellectually, in the political economy and in the domestic realm,” the untangling is not complete in the broader political economy anyway, although there has been great progress in the last 40-50 years – and more on the way, I suspect.

            There is a subset of politically active women, by the way, who continue to object to sex/gender equality. Kay Hymowitz, Michelle Bachmann, Phyllis Schlafly. They like the “alpha man” stuff. I think the MRAs should be focusing their attention on these men, not on feminist women or pro-feminist men.

            • Clark Kent says:

              First and foremost I am not affiliated nor do I identify myself as MRA…

              I understand what you are trying to convey, however, I don’t see how you can call Fathers and Families problematic and biased and not say the same for comparable Feminist organizations.

              What is the harm in have male run or male centered initiatives that cater specifically to men and their issues. Certainly not all Feminist organizations are inclusive of men or their concerns. Furthermore this assumption that by proxy Feminism will help men where they are “lacking” remains to be seen.

              You said that, “The way feminism helps men get equal parenting rights is by getting them access to their emotional range, adult communication skills, awareness of social/economic/political systems, etc that they need to be good parents.”

              I’m sure there are a great many men who have access to a full range of emotional expression and adult communication skills (the assumption that most men don’t is a COLLECTIVE generalization is it not?). There are a great many divorced men and fathers who have the ability and desire to be a nurturing forces in their children’s lives.

              However, the issue is that when it comes to father’s rights its not about the individual male’s capacity to be a good father. It is the FACT that the legal system is slanted in a way that benefits mother’s and as a consequence makes it far too easy to alienate father’s from their children. Ms. Doucet acknowledges such stories herself. And, if you think that there isn’t a definite disadvantage when it comes to father’s having fair custody of their children you are very naive.

              Back to my initial complaint. I do not see how men embracing feminism to become more “fully human” (as if all or most men suffer so greatly from lack of emotional expression) so to speak will help men in a LEGAL capacity when it comes to their rights.

            • “I do not see how men embracing feminism to become more “fully human” (as if all or most men suffer so greatly from lack of emotional expression) so to speak will help men in a LEGAL capacity when it comes to their rights.”

              Again, as I repeatedly stated in these posts, there is no assumption that all men lack access to their humanity. There is a problem where socialization into the patriarchal system tends to deprive both men and women of their human range.

              Because children are dependent, both physically and psychologically, and require support and attention and non-violent boundaries, to develop, this is why men who are able to show that they can step away from the authoritarian fathering that patriarchy tends to socialize them into will have more success in court disputes. You can call a psychotherapist or non-patriarchal child development expert to testify on your behalf, for example.

              Also, as I mentioned above, a lot rides on how the marriage or family was set up. If it was set up with shared parenting-shared earning, this has a very different consequence in divorce than if it was set patriarchally.

              To attract a woman who can do shared parenting/shared earning, a man needs to have a full emotional range, adult communication skills, adult ego strength and the ability to recognize and navigate difference (such as the differences in biology of men and women) in an egalitarian, empathetic, reciprocal, non-narcissistic way.

              So, learning these things and getting out of the patriarchal, authoritarian father programming (which feminism, as a deconstruction of patriarchy, can help with) before marrying in the first place can be very helpful in getting equal parenting during the marriage and in a divorce (although as I mentioned, these marriages tend not to end in divorce, as a recent Pew Research study found).

            • Anonymous says:

              “Because children are dependent, both physically and psychologically, and require support and attention and non-violent boundaries, to develop, this is why men who are able to show that they can step away from the authoritarian fathering that patriarchy tends to socialize them into will have more success in court disputes. You can call a psychotherapist or non-patriarchal child development expert to testify on your behalf, for example.”

              Am I understanding this statement to mean that in custody disputes, men are assumed to be stuck in patriarchal fathering until they can prove otherwise? Am I understanding correctly that the court would also have to decide whether a child development expert was suitably free of patriarchy? If I’ve misread this, please correct me, but I get the impression that mothers would not fall under the same presumption of guilt. The burden of proof, if possible, would be on the father to prove the mother is a bad parent? (Assuming an adversarial custody case, of course.)

              I must be reading that wrong. Is this an MRA posing as his enemy?

              So, in a custody case of a lesbian couple with adopted children, both are equally good parents? In a custody case involving two gay men with adopted children, would the state need to take the kids away because both are equally bad parents?

            • J.G. te Molder says:

              Newsflash sweetheart, parents are SUPPOSED to be authority figures. In fact, during their development, children often behave badly instinctively to find those authority figures. Do not give them authority, and children will grow up broken, if not as outright criminals.

              You want to know why children raised by single mothers so often turn out broken, especially mothers who got duped by the feminist fantasy? Because they no longer have an authority figure; the mother thinks being an authority figure, and so just lets their kids do whatever, and that way they don’t learn boundaries, manners, morals and ethics.

              Studies show, that single fathers, produces significantly more well-adjusted adults through their parenting – why? Because they are still authority figures.

          • Reader 2 says:

            Lying in a Room of One’s Own: http://www.iwf.org/files/d8dcafa439b9c20386c05f94834460ac.pdf shows that feminism is the ultimate LIE. This website is sponsored by the Twisted Sisters at Ms. magazine. The ‘men’ who run this propaganda organ are feebleminded flunkies for feminists who are trying to convert men into good feminists.

          • J.G. te Molder says:

            There were was never a patriarchy, and men were not favored in this non-existent system. Men were cannon-fodder, work-fodder, all but slaves, used up on the fields, massively dangerous jobs and to take the bullets on the front lines for the aristocracy.

            It is one of those lies that feminism tells you, (other is that they are about equality or about empowering women; quite the contrary.)

            Just like they were but a few elite princesses, there were but a few elite alpha males, and they mutually oppressed everyone else, female AND male.

            Feminism doesn’t fight this concept, on the contrary, it’s working to put it back into place. The enlightenment and the democratic revolution alleviate some of it, and now feminism is working hard to reduce women to infantile entitlement princesses who are taught to never take responsibility for their own actions and choices. Have a gang bang and your boyfriend finds out? Quick, call rape and let the state help me absolve my responsibility! Someone tells a joke and you can’t deal with being offended? Quick! Call the state, cry sexual harassment, boohoo, a joke! How could they make a joke! The horror!

            Feminists are a pathetic bunch of weaklings who can’t do anything without manipulating men and the state to do everything for them.

      • Women are not superior. Human beings are superior to authoritarian fathers and economically and politically disenfranchised mothers.

        • No, I did not say these things. I was speaking in the abstract about the humanist, egalitarian, equal-rights-responsibilities-and-rewards-of- parenting objective that I (and I think the author as well) think is what feminist deconstruction of patriarchy is about. We have not reached the objective yet.

          • No, I did not say these things.

            Yes, you did. You stated, “The way feminism helps men get equal parenting rights is by getting them access to their emotional range, adult communication skills, awareness of social/economic/political systems, etc that they need to be good parents.” I understand that as a non-feminist male I lack adult communication skills, but my comprehension skills work fine, and what you wrote clearly suggests that men do not possess any of the above traits, and implies that women do. If you want to retract that statement, go for it. However, you cannot claim that you did not write what you clearly wrote.

            I was speaking in the abstract about the humanist, egalitarian, equal-rights-responsibilities-and-rewards-of- parenting objective that I (and I think the author as well) think is what feminist deconstruction of patriarchy is about.

            No, you were not. There is nothing abstract about “the way feminism helps men get equal parenting rights is by getting them access to their emotional range, adult communication skills, awareness of social/economic/political systems, etc that they need to be good parents”. That is concrete language specifically about feminism. Feminism is not humanism. Some feminists may be humanists, but the two modes of thinking are not synonymous. If you meant humanist, you should have written that. Ironically, clarity of intent and meaning is critical to adult communication skills.

            • My point was that patriarchy socializes men into being cut-off from aspects of themselves (and it does this to women as well). Deconstructing patriarchy, which is what feminism is about, gets both men and women access to a full emotional range. Sometimes this happens in children all the way through when they grow up in egalitarian parenting homes. Sometimes it happens in adults who are able to look at their patriarchal conditioning, and get away from it, giving them broader range.

              In the case of any particular man or woman, they may have varying degrees, of this patriarchal socialization – or none at all in some cases.

              My sense is that MRAs are heavily socialized into patriarchy, intensely loyal to it, and unable to even see it or alternatives – this is why they get into these subjectivity battles where they claim they “know” another person’s intention or meaning even when that person says otherwise.

              When I said I meant I was speaking in the “abstract” I was replying to the other commenter’s interpretation of my statement as being a statement of factual reality of women’s and men’s relative status in the political economy. I was describing the abstract ideal that feminism’s deconstruction of patriarchy works toward, and we are not there yet.

            • My point was that patriarchy socializes men into being cut-off from aspects of themselves (and it does this to women as well).

              But that is not what you wrote, and at any rate how society socializes men has nothing to do with fathers routinely losing custody cases. So yes, I understand that Jesus saves, however, that has nothing to do with the Vatican covering up child abuse. That latter is provable fact; the former is belief. The same applies in this situation. It is fact that fathers routinely lose custody cases. It is belief and poorly defined theory that “patriarchy” exists. Peddling rhetoric does not help solve the clear gender imbalance in the family court system.

            • “My sense is that MRAs are heavily socialized into patriarchy,”

              Well, sense again. The MGTOW movementnis explicitly anti-patriarchal. the anti-chivalry aspect of the mainstream MRM is explicitly anti-patriarchal. There is indeed a wing of that movement typified by the Manhood Academy that is patriarchal.

              But since you bring it up, just how socialized into patriarchy are feminists? Every feminist who uses the patriarchal legislative system to get laws likeTitle IX or VAWA passed, or who defends anti-father discrimination of the fmaily courts, or who incites legla lynch mobs through rape hysteria, is acting as an agent of the Patriachy. That kind of feminism is just the Lady’s Auxiliary of the Patriarchy.

            • Great comment.
              Chivalry = women are weak, so individual men must prop them up
              feminism = women are “oppressed” (damn right I put air quotes!) so society must prop them up

            • How is that you you think you can deny my thinking? My sentence said “I (and I think the author as well) think . . . .” This is the very definition of narcissism – an inability to tolerate other’s subjective interpretations and an insistence on your view supplanting theirs.

              Your reply was to deny that we could have a view of feminism. And what a fool you are to do so.

            • Reader

              “How is that you you think you can deny my thinking? My sentence said “I (and I think the author as well) think . . . .” This is the very definition of narcissism – an inability to tolerate other’s subjective interpretations and an insistence on your view supplanting theirs.

              Your reply was to deny that we could have a view of feminism. And what a fool you are to do so”

              Feminists tend to be gender narcissists as evidenced by your thinking, and the authors which is that its acceptable to hijack the issues and pain of children and men, who are being victimised by certain abusive, high conflict women who are willfully using children and the courts to exclude, obstruct and cause pain and argue a case for more power for women.

              The message, is the abuse will stop if you do what we want and what you want is for couples to arrange their lives according to your ideological positions.

              In reality, women are more likely to want a male breadwinner situation and for the women that want to be breadwinners, there is nothing stopping them.

            • Reader, I’m sympathetic with your viewpoints, but can you please knock it off with the two-bit, barroom psycho-analysis?

              If I have to listen to one more person – and it seems to be women, far more than men – make this sort of ad hominem “you’re nuts” argument when someone says something they dislike, I think I’ll have to go club some baby seals, just to get my aggression out.

          • If you think that “patriarchy” is responsible for abusive, high conflict women that use children and divorce courts as a proxy weapon in ongoing campaigns of conflict and abuse, you are quite mistaken.

            Borderline and narcissistic personality disordered women are the cause, feminist jurisprudence in family law is the means.

            • LOL

              To the extent this is a true characterization (it is a grossly inappropriate generalization about all women who end up in divorce court), the lack of women’s economic and political autonomy is what gives them these disorders.

              Also, like attracts like. People with these pathologies usually attract and are attracted to others with the same, or mirror disorder. Bordelines attract narcissists and vice versa.

              Healthy people don’t marry unhealthy people.

              So, I’m afraid your worship of MRAs is misplaced, Jayne, and you’ll have to admit you are a woman and not a man. Talk about borderline personality disorder!

            • “To the extent this is a true characterization (it is a grossly inappropriate generalization about all women who end up in divorce court), the lack of women’s economic and political autonomy is what gives them these disorders.

              Also, like attracts like. People with these pathologies usually attract and are attracted to others with the same, or mirror disorder. Bordelines attract narcissists and vice versa.

              Healthy people don’t marry unhealthy people.

              So, I’m afraid your worship of MRAs is misplaced, Jayne, and you’ll have to admit you are a woman and not a man. Talk about borderline personality disorder!”

              Reader

              What a litany of logical fallacies. Im not even going to bother responding to .

              And no doubt you do a 180 when its a female being thats has been victimised by a man with a PD and its no longer a case of it being their own fault. And you want people to take your subjective vision of “equality” seriously.

              I dont worship MRAs, I just dont view feminists as being balanced, rational examples of women.

            • And no doubt you do a 180 when its a female being thats has been victimised by a man with a PD and its no longer a case of it being their own fault. And you want people to take your subjective vision of “equality” seriously.

              LOL. I do not support women victimizing men any more than I do men victimizing women. OR women victimizing and generalizing about other women – which you are doing. You have generalized that all women in divorce court have psychological disorders – not only is the generalization inaccurate but you ignore whether any men in divorce court have psychological disorders. You have also generalized that “feminists [are not] balanced, rational examples of women.”

              One sign that psychologists use to diagnose people with narcissistic disorders is this type of generalized, stereotyped thinking. Especially in people with trauma in their past, they lack the emotional availability to see people as individuals and instead need to generalize; it’s a coping mechanism that gives them a false sense of power. Autism is an extreme example of this.

              Borderline is usually about a person whose lack of self-awareness causes them to refuse to identify with someone like them – such as a woman who cannot identify with any feminist or any woman in divorce court.

              Some people have manifestations of both.

            • Reader

              No I did not generalise that all women in divorce courts have disorders, as you well know. I was talking specifically about the ones that are using children and the courts as a proxy weapon against their ex. and the ones that make a unilateral decision to exclude or replace the father without good reason and so generate the existence of fathers rights groups.
              And you have blamed the victim, and “patriarchy” for the behaviour of these women, you have also repeatedly implied that there will be no recourse for these men and their children unless certain ideological demands are met and this is the tone the OP is taking too, using abuse and children as leverage, its an immoral position that rooted in blackmail and abuse.

            • One sign that psychologists use to diagnose people with narcissistic disorders is this type of generalized, stereotyped thinking.

              Pronto.

              I had to go out back behind the FUNEMAC building and thuggishly beat two baby harp seals to death, Reader, and it’s all your fault.

              I hope you’re happy now.

              You know, one of the signs psychologists use to diagnose psychotics is the belief that YOU are sane while the rest of the world is crazy.

      • As I posted above, there are many men who get equal parenting. I suspect “MRAs” tend not to get it because they see themselves as “alpha men” and tend to use women; women then use them right back.
        =============
        Wow, that’s a very subjective statement. Talk about bias. On what do you base this supposition? 80% of mothers get sole custody, where all those fathers using their wives and deserved it?
        ====
        If you set up your marriage on the patriarchal model – where the man is the primary contact with the political economy and does not learn parenting skills or do half the unpaid work of caring for children – you cannot be surprised when the court system then creates a divorce settlement that mirrors that.
        =====================
        That’s a legal argument, but not one based on justice or even what is in the child’s best interests.
        42 states have the solecustody / visitation family court laws that will end up as you stated. However, 8 states now have presumption of shared parenting which simply states parenting time will be split as close to equal as possible (unless 1 parent is proven unfit). If the judge decides something else he must give a reason (which judges don’t have to do in the other 42 states w/the winner-take-all strategy).
        Just because that’s how it is now, isn’t how it necessarily SHOULD be.
        There are many many studies which show post-divorce children fare much better when having substantially large time with both parents.
        I thought it was all about the kids?

        • It is about the kids. The courts are protecting children, not women, actually when they mirror the way the couple set up the marriage. In a patriarchal marriage, the man has many years of not learning parenting skills, not doing half the unpaid work, not learning to navigate work/parenting conflict. He is not prepared or qualified for shared parenting/shared earning. His ex-wife has had many years of practice doing parenting, been doing more than half the unpaid work, not learning navigate work/parenting conflict, and missing years of experience she needs to compete in earning. The kids need the parenting and earning managed – and the conflict between these managed. The couples have, by definition, not been able to manage this together and so this is why the court steps in. The court has defer to the practiced parent and the earner with experience; it is the only way to get the children through the crisis.

          Again, your best shot at shared parenting/shared earning is to set up your marriage that way – and not to try to get it later.

          • I just wanted to clarify that “not to try to get it later” applies to the case of men who set up their families in the patriarchal model. It is pretty tough to reverse a path when you’re that far along; it takes a lot of time, and childhood is relatively short.

          • I just wanted to let you know that I did reply to this, but it is in moderation.
            I’m actually looking forward to your further response once it’s posted.

          • Again, your best shot at shared parenting/shared earning is to set up your marriage that way – and not to try to get it later.
            ———-
            That’s true only of the 42 states that have the sole custody (winner takes all) model of family court.
            There are 8 states that have laws that state the default model in family court divorces will be shared parenting (unless a parent is proven unfit). If the judge deviates from that he must state his reasons.

            This view that a parenting time continuum must be maintained is not based on logic or what is best for the kids (unfortunately in those 42 states with sole custody, most courts hold the same opinion). When a father (or mother) works a 60 hour week, he is still IN THE CHILD’S LIFE, even if only an hour or two daily.

            80% of full-time employed fathers when surveyed state they would love to take more time off to be with the family if it didn’t risk their employment or hurt their family finances.
            A father working overtime who misses cherished events (baby’s first steps, first words, first day at school) only has the sustaining notion that this is his gift to his child(ren).

            Post-divorce when this gift is changed to something forcibly extracted and instead of being in his kids life daily he is now relegated to 2days of fourteen (AT BEST — assuming the ex honors visitation) I could definitely see a father wanting more parenting time. I think that would be a natural human reaction of anybody in that situation.

            ht tp://www.telegraph.co.uk/relationships/divorce/6575997/Third-of-family -break-up-children-lose-contact-with-fathers-in-failing-court-system-poll.h tml
            One third of children post-divorce lose permanent contact with their father. The overwhelming majority of this is due to visitation interference.
            After a divorce many many mothers openly disregard or interfere with fathers visitation time. When this happens there is little a father can do. Cops and courts will not enforce court-ordered visitation. Typically, the only thing a father can do is wage an expensive and lengthy legal battle that has little chance of success.

            Often we hear how women’s choices shouldnt’ be cut short or interfered with in any way. Women can dress any way they want, and pursue any job they want. Even in a marriage a woman with children or without who is working can decide to stop working even if the husband protests (and even though this would put more pressure on him).

            But suddenly, when we’re talking about something as important as parenting time (post-divorce), fathers don’t get this right. The father’s rights are honored only at the mothers permission. She and she alone (thanks to enabling family courts) decides how much of a father he will be allowed to be. In a JUST world the law would be setup with equal parenting, and that 50% parenting time would be the FATHER’S to lose (by unfitness) or disregard–not THE MOTHER’S to determine how much or little he can have (I guess that’s a big issue I have w/feminists–they keep giving advice for men/fathers on what to do w/the MISANDRIC laws we have in place instead of talking about what their sense of justice truly says).

            80% of men in prison hail from fatherless homes. 95% of men on death-row hail from fatherless homes. Men raised in fatherless homes are 14 times more likely to commit rape.
            Some more articles on the importance of fathers:

            ht tp://www.physorg.com/news200849688.h tml
            men who had close contact with fathers more likely to be emotionally stable

            ht tp://www.projo.com/education/juliasteiny/content/EDWATCH_21_02-21-10_L CHFEIR_v9.2937bd2.h tml
            “fatherlessness is a wound that doesn’t go away”

            ht tp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31086977
            devoted dads reduce teen pregnancy

            ht tp://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-me-irby-mandrell8-2 009mar08,0,1865029.story

            Barbara Mandrell honors her father’s love & support.

            ht tp://open.salon.com/blog/amytuteurmd/2009/02/23/are_fathers_optional A child is owed a father, and any woman who is unable or unwilling to provide one is making a self indulgent, selfish choice to conceive a child.

            ht tp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16219-time-with-dad-is-time-well-s pent.html
            The more effort a father invests in his children, the smarter they are as kids and more successful as adults, new research shows.

            ht tp://www.wfu.edu/~nielsen/divorceddad.pdf
            Teenagers and young adults who have close relationships with their fathers are less likely to become clinically depressed, to develop eating disorders, and to develop anxiety disorders.
            Children who are able to maintain a close relationship with their father also tend to be more socially mature and to have fewer problems related to dating and sexuality.

            It shouldn’t be up to mothers after a divorce how much of a bond fathers and children will share. If men shouldn’t be able to control women’s choices, then why should women be allowed to control this choice for men?
            Just because a marriage is setup in the provider/carer model doesn’t mean it should be in divorce–nothing is permanent. After all, women mostly are the ones to instigate a divorce and break the promise to their husband that they would be married forever:
            http://www.livestrong.com/article/146100-why-do-women-initiate-divorce/
            per this 46,000 divorce 4state study women are 66% more likely to initiate divorce, and they do so for very narcissistice reasons.

            In essence divorce laws in the usa are NOT about the kids. They are about giving mothers whatever they desire.

  5. Dear “Reader”,

    Thank you for doing such an excellent job of clarifying and ‘untangling’ the complexity and inclusiveness of feminist approaches to fathering.

    • Sure, no problem. My heart goes out to the MRAs actually – they don’t know what they are missing.

      I do think that the “fem” prefix in feminism may be a problem.

      • Or maybe they do on some level know what they are missing – but they don’t understand how to get it.

        • Or that they know what’s missing, have tried to get it in the ways advocated here, and are trying to find another way to get it.

          • LIke seeing a psychotherapist, talking about these things in a respectful way with the women in their life, reading good quality fathering materials, and support groups, like Badalament, Kimmel, Pruett, JA Smith – DaddyDialectic, Vachon – Equally Shared Parenting, Poulter, etc?

            • Or being told they are less than human, they are only out to harm children, they only want to be in their children’s lives to use them pawns to hurt their moms, that told that because they are men they are only out to hurt women?

              What you say may be true but let’s not act like feminism is only pushing the sunshine and rainbows.

            • Please look at the authorities I cited and consider pursuing what I suggested. You can stay in “victimization” mode or you can do the work of getting out from under it and showing what you need to, both to attract a woman who will do shared earning/shared parenting with you, and to get equal parenting in the event of a divorce. And, first and foremost, to do the best by your children that you can.

            • Who said anything about “victimization mode”. Look I agree a lot of what you’re saying does not mean giving a free pass to the negativity I deal with. I don’t have a lot going on at my blog but I am doing something to try to make things better. Its not my fault that there is negativity in your precious feminist movement. I’m not going to spend all my time pointing out the negativity I see in it anymore but I’m not going to clam up and act like its a perfect entity that’s beyond reproach either.

              I don’t have children at this time but I am trying to do right by them by saying something about the ways that dads are treated unfairly. I see stories of men with children and how they get the short end of the stick and I hope by the time the day comes that I do have children everything will be better. But that’s not going to happen if we just stick to holding only certain people accountable based on their gender or affiliation.

            • wellokaythen says:

              I keep hearing about this “victimization mode” thingy. Could I get an explanation what exactly that is?

              Somehow people get “stuck” in it, and that’s bad, of course. But, if some people really are victims and nothing is done to address the injustice, then are they not still victims? If someone claims to be a victim and is not really a victim, that’s one thing, but if someone is a victim, isn’t it appropriate to point that out?

              I get that victims are more than just victims, but should we just ignore victimization because of that?

            • It seems that when it comes to what qualifies for it its just an arbitrary (as in having nothing to do with the harm in question) characteristic that makes the difference. Watch.

              Black guy getting upset that a white woman crossed the street away from him because he’s black. Valid.

              Black guy getting upset that a white woman crossed the street away from him because he’s a man. Victimization mode.

              Woman pointing out how the family court system is unfair when she doesn’t get any child support or alimony but gets primary custody and denies the dad’s portion of visitation/custody. Valid

              Man pointing out how the family court system is unfair when he is branded a deadbeat and tossed in jail for missing one payment but is denied his portion of visitation/custody. Victimization mode.

            • Danny: Or that they know what’s missing, have tried to get it in the ways advocated here, and are trying to find another way to get it.

              Reader: LIke seeing a psychotherapist, talking about these things in a respectful way with the women in their life, reading good quality fathering materials, and support groups, like Badalament, Kimmel, Pruett, JA Smith – DaddyDialectic, Vachon – Equally Shared Parenting, Poulter, etc?

              I think what you’re missing Reader is that it is not justice or fair or equal rights for the fathers right to parenting time (or the child’s right to have a loving involved dad) to be assigned at the whims of the mother.

              Family courts should enforce dad’s visitation–which they almost never do. 1/3rd of children lose permanent contact with their fathers. In the overwhelming majority of cases this is due to visitation interference by mothers.

              You say that fathers should have to speak to the mothers in respectful ways in order to get his COURT-ENFORCED access. I say that those are his RIGHTS. It doesn’t seem very respectful to me for a mother to deny a father his parenting time.

              Most importantly, it’s definitely NOT in the best interests of the child.

            • post divorce 1/3 of children lose permanent contact with their dad within 3 years.

            • Again, it’s how you set up the marriage.

              If you want equal parenting, set your marriage up that way with both parents earning, both parents parenting and both parents doing roughly half the unpaid work of the family.

            • I’m not taking away the freedom to choose, just warning that there are consequences to each of the choices of (a) choosing a mate for patriarchal marriage or (b) choosing a mate for egalitarian, shared parenting/shared earning marriage..

              Women face serious costs in patriarchal marriage as well – even though they may get more power in raising children and more time with them, they are also more accountable if things go wrong with the children – it is more difficult to raise a child well if the mother is the primary-majority parent and not earning; it also leaves women in poverty, especially in old age. These marriages are also more likely to end in divorce in the first place – as a Pew Research Study indicated.

              And, yes, there is unpaid work in raising a child – a lot of it – just as there is nonmonetary reward in doing the job well..

            • I’m not taking away the freedom to choose, just warning that there are consequences to each of the choices of (a) choosing a mate for patriarchal marriage or (b) choosing a mate for egalitarian, shared parenting/shared earning marriage..
              =========
              But, you are supporting a system that limits freedom. Nobody would dare tell a woman of divorce that her decision to be a full-time carer is “LOCKED IN” for the next 18-25 years and she would only be allowed to start a business, volunteer, train for a career, go to college, start a job ONLY with the permission of her ex & family court?

              Yet that is exactly the type of system you are supporting when you talk about NCP dads (and mom’s for that matter). How much of a father a man is to be with his kids shouldn’t be dictated by an ex and family courts any more than a mothers decision to change her work/family balance should be decided by her ex & family court.

              Are you starting to get a sense of how absurd it is to say that somebody should be “LOCKED IN” to their work/life balance choice for 18-25 years just because of some kind of arbitrary and capricious rule?

              Luckily with or without you things are changing. There are another 12 or so states looking into shared parenting.

              This is the beginning of the end for feminists. No longer will they be allowed to self-identify as an equal rights movement while actively supporting more and more privileges for women only–particularly in family law. You’re not fooling anybody, maybe you should just stop talking while you’re behind and show your bias even more strongly.

              I can only hope that some men & women who call themselves feminist (who are truly concerned about REAL equal rights) have started to question what kind of movement they have signed on to.

              1/3rd of children post-divorce lose permanent contact with their fathers within a few years (the OVERWHELMING majority of it due to visitation interference).

              This is allowed to happen with an anti-father family court, despite all the proof having dads in kids lives matter:

              80% of men in prison hail from fatherless homes. 95% of men on death-row hail from fatherless homes. Men raised in fatherless homes are 14 times more likely to commit rape.
              Some more articles on the importance of fathers:

              ht tp://www.physorg.com/news200849688.h tml
              men who had close contact with fathers more likely to be emotionally stable

              ht tp://www.projo.com/education/juliasteiny/content/EDWATCH_21_02-21-10_L CHFEIR_v9.2937bd2.h tml
              “fatherlessness is a wound that doesn’t go away”

              ht tp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31086977
              devoted dads reduce teen pregnancy

              ht tp://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-me-irby-mandrell8-2 009mar08,0,1865029.story

              Barbara Mandrell honors her father’s love & support.

              ht tp://open.salon.com/blog/amytuteurmd/2009/02/23/are_fathers_optional A child is owed a father, and any woman who is unable or unwilling to provide one is making a self indulgent, selfish choice to conceive a child.

              ht tp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16219-time-with-dad-is-time-well-s pent.html
              The more effort a father invests in his children, the smarter they are as kids and more successful as adults, new research shows.

              ht tp://www.wfu.edu/~nielsen/divorceddad.pdf
              Teenagers and young adults who have close relationships with their fathers are less likely to become clinically depressed, to develop eating disorders, and to develop anxiety disorders.
              Children who are able to maintain a close relationship with their father also tend to be more socially mature and to have fewer problems related to dating and sexuality.

              These studies are just the tip of the iceberg out of the hundreds that show dads matter to kids.
              It’s NOT about the kids, it’s about giving mothers whatever they want, no matter who’s rights get stepped on or how many children are harmed.

            • Reader

              “Again, it’s how you set up the marriage.

              If you want equal parenting, set your marriage up that way with both parents earning, both parents parenting and both parents doing roughly half the unpaid work of the family”..

              A mothers making a unilateral decision, to obstruct, exclude or replace a childs father against his will or her using the child as a proxy weapon to inflict emotional abuse has nothing to the way the couple ran their family, and most parenting and out side the home work is “shared”, because we live in dual income family economies. I’m sorry to be so blunt but you seem to be either very out of touch or deliberately trying to mislead us.

            • Again, it’s how you set up the marriage.

              If you want equal parenting, set your marriage up that way with both parents earning, both parents parenting and both parents doing roughly half the unpaid work of the family.
              Based on your logic on how the marriage is setup when it comes to divorce time when it comes to splitting assets and custody then the father should not have to pay child support or alimony.

              Because let’s get down to it. If we’re talking about a marriage where the mother did most of the child care there are plenty of forces in place to make sure she gets the support she needs (or wants). But in the face of dads being pushed out of their kids lives all you seem to say it, “make it an equal marriage from the start.” While hat makes sense how do you explain how one sided the courts are when it comes to how it currently handles divorce?

              I don’t see anyone telling those mothers that are getting support and alimony while at the same time pushing dads way that they should have set up an equal marriage (and I damn sure don’t see this being told to the ones that aren’t getting support and alimony).

              So in the end your logic echoes the current system in place. When a woman needs help all of society must band together to help her but when a man needs help just tell him to bugger off until he learns how to help himself.

      • g.russell says:

        MY heart goes out to the feminists that believe the MRAs need their sympathy.
        could i ask why there are no stories on here from MRAs?.

    • Doucet,

      With all due respect, you are not helping to show that feminists are not biased against men and fathers by supporting this kind of sexist statement: “The way feminism helps men get equal parenting rights is by getting them access to their emotional range, adult communication skills, awareness of social/economic/political systems, etc that they need to be good parents.”

      Do you honestly believe men are incapable of expressing emotion, communicating like adults, or being aware of social, political, and economic situations without feminism?

      It is that kind of bigoted, misandrist statement that justifies men’s rights activists’ anger towards feminists. If that is the opinion you have of fathers, how can you actually help them? How could you ever care about them when you consider them so beneath you? I typically such comparisons just because of the egregious nature of them, however, the above quote is no different than the racist “white society civilizes the Negro” nonsense one might have heard not that long ago.

      If feminists operate from that level of bias, literally that you consider men uncivilized and practically sub-human until you have trained them, is it any wonder that people advocating for men’s rights might not like feminists?

      • If . . . you consider men uncivilized and practically sub-human until you have trained them, is it any wonder that people advocating for men’s rights might not like feminists?”

        As I noted repeatedly by you have ignored, I was speaking on the systemic level about how patriarchy actually trains men (and women, by the way) in a direction that leaves them unable to parent effectively.

        No one is saying women need to do the deconstructing and healthier, many men are advocates for the deconstruction of patriarchy and excellent dads. I’ve cited a number of them here in my posts.

        Children do need good parents. They can’t survive for long in the wild, so they will sometimes be loyal to bad parents – of both sexes (with MRAs it seems to be loyalty to “bad dads” primarily, though) – because they have no choice for survival, but they do better with good parents of both sexes.

        • As I noted repeatedly by you have ignored, I was speaking on the systemic level about how patriarchy actually trains men (and women, by the way) in a direction that leaves them unable to parent effectively.

          Set aside the rhetoric and dogma and think about this logically: do you honestly think that in the thousands of years humans have existed, it has only been in the last fifty, and solely because of feminism, that men learned how to parent effectively?

          No one is saying women need to do the deconstructing and healthier, many men are advocates for the deconstruction of patriarchy and excellent dads. I’ve cited a number of them here in my posts.

          with MRAs it seems to be loyalty to “bad dads” primarily, though

          You reached that conclusion based on what evidence? Just because men’s rights activists disagree with feminism does not mean they support bad parenting.

          • “Just because men’s rights activists disagree with feminism does not mean they support bad parenting.”

            Yes, it does. It’s not that they support bad parenting, but that it it their norm and they can’t see it for what it is to even find another path.

            MRAs’ inability to see beyond the word “feminism” to try to understand what it is about; their inability to acknowledge the existence of patriarchy and their confusion where they label women like Hymowitz or Schlafly feminists, when those women do not identify that way all point to a walled-off mind that is not able to process information or dialogue.. This is the very definition of narcissistic or “bad” parenting.

            The difference between MRAs and men like Vachon, Badalament, Pruett, Kimmel, JA Smith, etc. is striking. MRAs can’t apparently see this difference between what they are advocating and what these good dads are doing.

            If you can’t see what is a “bad dad,” then you can’t see (or be) a “good dad” either.

            • Yes, it does. It’s not that they support bad parenting, but that it it their norm and they can’t see it for what it is to even find another path.

              You did not answer my question. I know that you think non-feminist men are bad parents. I want to know what evidence supports that conclusion, beyond the typical sexist feminist rhetoric?

              Setting that aside, I find it interesting that feminists spent so much time a month ago complaining about men’s rights activists not challenging sexist statements made by their comrades. Yet when presented with the same situation where feminists make sexist comments, not one feminists has bothered to challenge them. I am sure there are plenty of “good men” reading these comments. How odd that none of them would challenge the above statements.

            • Maybe it’s because I was differentiating between men and not generalizing as you say.

            • J.G. te Molder says:

              That’s where you are wrong. MRAs aren’t stuck on the word feminism, they are stuck on what feminism says and does, the lies, the missinformation, the shaming tactics, the laws that excuse women of any wrong doing, while helping innocent men into jail.

              We are the ones who see through the bullshit, we have the communicative capability to see through the tactic of repeating “equality” ad nauseum breaking down the defense, and then sprouting the misandric crap right after.

              Men are bad in this way, until feminism helps them out.

              Men are evil in the other way, until feminism comes to help them out.

              Blah, blah, blah, it’s more of the same bullshit. You can spout the world “equality” all you want, but the rest of feminism’s words and actions show the exact opposite.

    • Proof…?

      • Thank you. Sources please?

        Hook, I’ve noticed that you are long on the clkaims and very short on the follow-up. If the evidence is out there, I want to see it. If it is as impressive as you’re claiming, it should be easy to link us to it.

        I find it interesting that you think that the UK is “probably a few decades further down the road than Brazil is”. Is this based on your knowledge of Brazil (which recently elected a feminist female president, by the way), or simply based on a view that – even in things you find negative – the UK needs must be more advanced than Brazil?

        Please do a google for the “Maria da Penha Law” and get back to me.

        • I’m not going to be fetching for you…

          Hook, you are an dult, voluntarily engaged in a political and social debate on a public forum dedicated to this proposal. You are making radical claims which you insist that we all accept, unconditionally. Furthermore, you constantly refer to “science”, as if its findings unambiguously and overwhelmingly supported your viewpoints.

          Under the circumstances, asking you to link us to some studies which support your claims (studies which you say are numerous but which no one can seem to find) is not asking you to “fetch”.

          It’s simply asking you to put your money where your mouth is.

          I mean, presuming that you don’t want to concede the point that you’re simply a blowhard with far more rhetoric than real knowledge of the matters being discussed here.

          • Like I said, Hook: you are the one making the spectacular claims, it’s thus up to you to provide spectacular proof to back them up.

            You’re trying to convince people, Hook, not me.

            If you can’t give proof of your assertions – proof, I might add, which you claim is easily available and so should thus be no trouble for you to link us to – I think it’s pretty logical to presume that you’re just sputing hyperbole.

        • g.russell says:

          I agree with hook and i come from the u.k.
          It is becoming a police state.

  6. Dear Andrea,

    Thank you for a thoughtful and interesting article. I wholeheartedly agree with you: looking at our expectations regarding fathering is a keystone to this whole debate. I would only add that there’s a whole class component to this that also needs to be addressed. Until care work is taken as seriously as boardroom work, we’re not going to see much change and the less powerful partner (whomever that might be) is going to get the dirty end of the stick.

    Another comment: you seem to think that relativism is postmodern and leads us to a directionless mire. In fact, relativism is one of the most modern concepts out there. I’d suggest that your “two lens theory” – going by what little of it you reveal above – is a classic example of relativism at work. Relativism simply states that there is no one privileged position from which one can objectively descry reality: one thus needs to consciously choose one’s analytical “lenses” and make that choice clear and obvious to one’s interlocutors, which appears to be exactly what you’re doing.

    • Thanks for this comment, Thaddeus, and your thoughtful additions to this debate. I agree that class is central as is the issue of the devaluation of care work. I also think that the issue of relativism (with its varied shades) is too large to unpack here, but your comment is appreciated and well stated.

      In my online writing and blogging (a recent activity for me), my goal has been to compress rather than expand; the downside is that elaboration and complexity are written out. Thanks for helping to expand some of the points made in this short piece.

  7. Source for that last stat on women earning more, please…?

    • So you’re basically saying that women’s dominance in the field of domestic spending somehow translates into more general economic power, Hook?

      Y’know, here in Brazil, I bet maids make the lion’s share of those purchases and influence many more. So does that make our domestic worker class the true Illuminati when it comes to Brazilian economics?

      My original question, however, wasn’t whether or not women still do the lion’s share of the shopping: it was where is the source of those numbers you cite regarding women’s supposed superior pay?

      Could you please give us that source?

      • In short, you have sweet fuck-all to back up the claims which you are asking us to accept at face value.

        You think being asked to show proof of your assertions in a public debate is being asked “to fetch”.

        Ironic, given that you’re one of the voices on this blog most consistently whinging about “political correctness”.

        Apparently, science is all well and good until your pushed to actually show proof of your claims, Hook. Then, you feel you’re being sorely put upon.

        I guess I made the mistake of thinking I was debating with someone who actually cared about the science of gender, rather than another MRA;/feminist blowhard.

      • Thaddeus, there is a break in your logic. Maids earn money buy their own two hands, they aren’t “in charge” of spending for somebody else who (potentially) makes much much more than they ever could.

        However, this is precisely the situation in many U.S. households. In fact (from what I have read in the past), the higher the income bracket the more of the discretionary spending the wife controls.

        Here is a link:
        http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=12789
        Women control 73% of spending within their households.

        http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=12789

        • John, with all due respect, you don’t have a maid working for you, do you? Like most lower middle class and up Brazilians, Ana and I do. Anilda comes in once a week to cook and clean for us. Twice a month, she does our shopping for us. Before you accuse us ofbeineg Evil Brazilian Middle Class Exploiters ™, she makes a better hourly wage than either of us do and gets full workers bennies.

          Still, one would have to be dense or blind to believe that Anilda’s practical control over 95% of our domestic budget translates into economic and social power on a large scale.

          Now let’s look at the two articles you linked us to…

          The first one is simply a report that shows that domestic purchases are overwhelmingly made by women. That’s what “control” means in this sense: women generally determine what brand of toilet paper you use, just like Anilda does the same for us. That is not economic “control” in the same sense that being a major shareholder of a Fortune 500 corporation is control. That’s a form of “power” that’s very difficult to transform into lasting and concrete improvements in one’s life.

          The second article seems to be a repeat of the first. Women “control” 4 trillion dollars in household purchases. Yeah, so? The maids of Brazil collectively control hundreds of bollions of dollaras, if not trillions of dollars, of the same: you’d be afool, however, to mistake that for some form of durable economic power.

          • Thaddeus,
            First of all I don’t know where you get the concept that I was trying to slam you in anything. You’re the person who brought up maids, and I did not see any post of yours stating that you hired a maid, so how you jump through hoops to arrive at the conclusion I was trying to slam you I don’t know.

            I am a buyer for an automotive plant. Would I presume that I am empowered because I make purchasing decisions at my plant? No. Why? Because I don’t own the property that I’m buying!
            That is also true of maids who make purchasing decisions for her employers.

            However, that is NOT true of wives who were secretaries or cashiers at walmart who have heart surgeon husbands and suddenly find themselves wielding purchasing power many times over what she ever could have achieved on her own. That IS empowering.
            I think this is pretty telling. If MEN were making most of the household buying decisions most feminists would be pointing to that as proof of our misogynistic society. But when women make most of the buying decisions, most feminists (in my experience) are saying it’s proof of nothing.

            You just can’t win with feminists. Even when men are 95% of on-the-job deaths and die on average 7 years earlier from running on the hamster wheel for the provider model they are typically coerced into by women, the women who get to have much more leisure time & actually enjoy the money created by the man’s blood, sweat, tears, health & death are shown to be VICTIMS.

            • I don’t think you’re necessarily trying to slam me, John, but I’ve already been accused oncve on this blog for being an unfeeling, exploitative member of the Brazilian elite, so I felt it would be a good thing to defuse the inevitable charge before anyone bothered to bring it up.

              However, that is NOT true of wives who were secretaries or cashiers at walmart who have heart surgeon husbands and suddenly find themselves wielding purchasing power many times over what she ever could have achieved on her own. That IS empowering.

              John, seriously: how common do you think that sort of situation is among women?

              If MEN were making most of the household buying decisions most feminists would be pointing to that as proof of our misogynistic society.

              I agree. And they’d also be talking out of their collective arses. Being a concumer does not necessarily give you political or economic power. The fact that many feminists would make that stupid claim is no cause for MRAs to make it.

            • I don’t think the heart surgeon male and walmart cashier female is very common, but you’re getting caught up in the examples and not debating the points.
              The point is your argument about maids don’t stand because while they wield some1 else’s purchasing power, they do not own the property.

              Why do feminists make all this bruhaha about different wages when husband and wives live in a communal property contract?
              Men are 95% of those who work in hazardous or grueling jobs like: mining, foresting, roofing, garbage collection (many businesses illegal throw away dangerous chemicals and other contaminated items), commercial fishing (which is the MOST dangerous occupation).

              Men are doing the dying at these jobs, while woman are safe at home and the women ARE STILL VICTIMS?

              Give me an effing break.

            • John, if it’s not very common, why do you bring it up?

              Hook’s point is that women are “normally” hypergamous. If you want to support that point, bring up a “normal” relationship, then, and show that it’s hypoergamous. Don’t use as your example a relationship which probably occurs less than a half dozen times throughout all of North America.

              As for women being property owners, I’m not sure how this is supposed to support the idea that thyey have greater economic power simply because they are the ones tasked with going down to the supermarket to fill up the family larder once a week.

              Women don’t own 73% of the household’s property, even after a divorce. So why would their partial ownership of the household be of any relevance to the claim that they are economically powerful because they excercize management of a lion’s share of household finance?

              The point is, John, when a marketing agency says women “control 73% of the budget”, what they are saying is that it’s women who ultimately detemine whether the house buys Captian Crunch or Fruit Loops this week. That “control” is interesting to a salesperson, but it’s not the sort of economic control gender studies people are talking about when they reference patriarchy or female dominance.

            • Still arguing the example and not the point.
              I’m not here to defend Hook, so if you want to refute my points then do that.

              I love how you avoid the point that we live in a common property marriage society.
              How come women’s wages are evidence of female victim hood but evidence of male disposability (which earns them the higher wages, which women DIRECTLY benefit from–maybe more so than the men themselves) isn’t evidence of anything?
              Concentrating on 1 example of mine (merited or not) will not detract from the evidence that your maid analogy is in the tank.

              Women aren’t buying items they don’t own for an employer, they are taping into somebody else’s purchase power who does so as a gift (often at great harm to themselves) for items the women co-owns with the man.
              I just love how the selfless sacrifice of millions of men, breaking down their health is somehow female victimhood.

              The point that women control 73% of household discretionary spending that this gives women economic muscle. Advertisers, those seeking campaign contributions, and many other ways in which society has tilted itself in favor of laws to the advantage of women.

              It’s hilarious because if MEN controlled 73% of household discretionary spending, everybody would be through the roof that it’s proof of a misogynistic world we live in. But, since it’s women it means nothing.

          • “women generally determine what brand of toilet paper you use, just like Anilda does the same for us. That is not economic “control” in the same sense that being a major shareholder of a Fortune 500 corporation is control. ”

            And this is not what John is talking about.

            Advertizers have discovered that misogyny and misandry sells. If you look for misandrist ads, these are generally aimed at woman as customers. Misogynist ads are generally for vehicle sales. Misandrist ads are basically everything else – food, especially convenience food(!); even home improvement items.

            There is a study waiting to be done about which spouse has more influence in home-buying decisions, but anecdotally real estate agents will tell you it’s the women. That is pretty major power, not quite the same thing as buying toilet paper.

    • What about doing some internet research by yourself?

      There are many MRA-websites and you can easily find the links to such articles by yourself.

      • Again, you’re the folks with The Cause, Yohan, trying to convince others. I just want to see what your assertions are based on.

        I do a lot of work on prostitutes’ rights issues. When people ask me for proof of my claims, there are articles and more articles at my fingertips and I am HAPPY to link folks to them.

        Why do I do this? Because a) I know my stuff and am not simply spitting sour grapes and asking people to accept my claims at face value, b) I’m really trying to CHANGE peoples’ attitudes about prostitutes, so I’m happy, happy, happy to point them to specific information regarding the questions that they might have.

        In my experience, people who make political claims, don’t back them up and then get their noses bent out of shape when asked for sources are people who know full well, at some level or another, that they are simply talking shite. These are folks who want to make their rhetoric do their work for them. They aren’t serious activists, they’re simply gripers with an opinion – usually a poorly -informed opinion at that.

        So if you’re an MRA and you REALLY think that men are getting the dirty end of the short stick? It’s incumbent on you to convince people of your position with facts, not just rhetoric. The kind of guy who says “Well, the facts are all out there, but don’t expect me to bring them to you” in a public debate such as this is either a moron, is arguing in bad faith, or really couldn’t give two flips about the point he’s arguing.

        Like I said above, I think we can agree that Hook is not a moron.

        • The best place to start is glennsacks.com
          Glenn sacks is probably the nicest guy of the MRA bunch. He’s a pro-gay feminist, who actually was in the care-giver role for about 4 years of his daughters life.
          If I remember correctly, he stated that the reason he got to be involved in men’s rights was that he felt so lucky to spend so much time with his children.
          The “being a caregiver is doing the HARD work” of a marriage is total bunk. Being the care-giver is the more fulfilling and easier job of almost 95% of paid work, and women know it. Feminists would know it too if they would stop and think about it in the cold light of reason. Why else would so many women choose it?

          other places are:
          friendsandfamilies.org
          http://www.angryharry.com
          http://www.mensactivism.org
          http://www.mensnewsdaily.com

          • John, I just wrote a 3 page response to a colleague who asked me for an opinion re: an article on the prostitution of Chinese women in late 19th century California. I backed my points up with pointers to specific information he could look up. That’s myjob because I’m purveying a point of view. That’s how science and informed debate work.

            I am not at all interested in spending hours combing through the tons of dross produced by MRAs (or feminists, for that matter) to find proof (or rebuttals) of Hooks’ points. The man has an axe to grind and a cause to promote? He can bloody well show the rest of us why we should take him seriously. He can go fetch his own proof. It’s not like I give two flicks of my tail whether or not his opinion is correct.

            As a self-proclaimed men’s rights activists, however, Hook should be worried about whether or not people take him seriously. Apparently, he couldn’t give a rat’s ass.

            Hook has proof, for example, of his rather radical claim that women are making better salaries than men? He can skittle it my way. Otherwise please don’t waste my time urging me to take unsupported claims seriously.

            • Thaddeus,
              I’m not going to defend Hook’s tactics. He’s free to debate in any style, and you’re free to call him on whatever you find lacking.

              Personally, I look for stuff on the internet for my job anyway, so it’s not a big deal to me.

              I have figured out kind of the technique needed with the google equations so I can find what I want fairly quickly.

              I typically do try to post studies, because I want to open people’s minds as much as possible.

              I don’t want to necessarily win an argument, I want to convince as many readers as possible of my views.

              Nuff said on that.

          • So many men choose jobs that might get them killed like mining. They must be easy, why else would so many men choose it?

            Perhaps for men and women there are other circumstances to choices that we should acknowledge?

    • http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html
      Here is one. I tried looking for others, but this is all I could find quickly & easily

      • Thank you John.

        Now note what else is said in that article:

        Here’s the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it’s known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. The rest of working women — even those of the same age, but who are married or don’t live in a major metropolitan area — are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide.

        So this information applies to a minority of American women. apparently the situation isn’t as cut and dried as Hook would have us believe.

        • Just so you know I posted a bevy of studies that show the wage gap is all due to the different work/life balance choices women make compared to men, but it’s in moderation hell.

          The more links you post the more comments seem to be frozen in moderation for some reason.

        • The Time article John D. linked us to certainlyy doesn’t say that, Hook. I’m not at all sure of which article you’re talking about here. Being precise leads to fewer misunderstandings.

    • In fairness, he referenced the Time magazine article & date. That would be a breeze to lookup.

      • Wow, Hook. That’s incredibly cynical that you would edit that MassMutual article so that it would read something completely different than it actually does.

        Here’s what the article really says (I added the caps for emphasis):

        “Senior women ARE AMONG the group of Americans aged 50 and older who control a household net worth of $19 trillion, own more than three-fourths of the nation’s financial wealth and own 70% of all money market accounts and certificates of deposit assets.”

        I’m sure I don’t have to explain to a person of your intellectual caliber how that differs from your quote: “Senior women age 50 and older control net worth of $19 trillion and own more than three-fourths of the nation’s financial wealth.”

        This is quite ironic, given the fact that you are the man who loudly accuses MArcotte and other intellectual adversaries of lying.

        As for women “controlling consumer wealth”, I’ve dealt with that in my reply to John, above. Deciding which brand of toilet paper to buy is what they mean by “controlling”, not majority positions on the board of Kimberly Clark.

        That is what “discretionary spending” means: you get to decide Coke or Pepsi. That is not at all the same thing as economic power, Hook.

        • Thaddeus:
          As for women “controlling consumer wealth”, I’ve dealt with that in my reply to John, above. Deciding which brand of toilet paper to buy is what they mean by “controlling”.

          Incorrect. These studies are on discretionary spending which would exclude consumables and other household maintenance items.

          • These are the studies reported in Ms. that you’re talking about here? Here’s what the article says:

            Women, according to the JEC report, control 73 percent of spending within their households, which is equivalent to approximately $4 trillion in yearly discretionary spending. Furthermore, women are more likely than men to control daily expenditures in more than half of middle and upper-class households.

            So that 73% of spending is ALL spending within the household and includes consumables and other household goods. Of that, 4 trillion dollars a year is “discretionary spending”, which comes out to be about 25,000 dollars per woman per year. Given that the median household income in the U.S. is about double that you find this to be horribly excessive?

            Yes, it isn’t balanced. But, once again, I question how much that “imbalance” translates into real power for women, given that household management is traditionally a woman’s chore. So aside from buying the Charmin, she also gets to go on the internet and decide which airline the family’s going to take when the go on vacation in Florida and which hotel they’ll stay in. Again, this sort of “control” is not the same as the “control” one gets from owning an airline or a hotel or being a member of the board of Kimberly Clark.

            • Good point. I will have to hit the books and verify that my beliefs are validated. The terminology I have always seen in the articles I have perused stated discretionary spending.
              If I have a rebuttal, I will come back on this later.
              However, even deciding on toothpaste and toilet paper give women some marketing power, just not to the same degree as true discretionary spending.

              If nothing else, they can always buy products that are doing some type of “Pink Ribbon campaign” or even buy items specifically because their “dad as doofus” campaign gives her a giggle.

              Here is an ad for the Nevada Water Authority about honoring “water shutoff” days for sprinklers.
              ht tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lhpevdl2Sng

              this ad won a TBS award for funniest ad of the year.
              Many times the misandry of our society is so invisible because it is so pervasive.
              Do you think a utility company could get away with an ad in which a man attacks a woman for not turning off the sprinklers?
              Also, since feminists seem so concerned about unwanted touching of somebody’s privates, in a just world being kicked/punched in the balls would be considered a sexual attack.

            • John, this kind of power that you’re talking about does exist and it even has a name in sociological theory: the weapons of the weak.

              I’m not saying that women don’t excercize a disproportionate share of decision-making in some aspects of life. I’m not even saying that this can’t give them some degree of power.

              What I’m saying is that it’s a very weak and conditional form of power compared to the type of power that has traditionally been wielded almost exclusively by men: the power to own and direct major ammounts of capital.

              When women start overtaking men as major CEOs and stockholders, then you might plausibly say that the power balance is really shifting.

              That’s why I found Hook’s misquote so appalling, by the way: he was basically saying that women control 3/4ths of the financial capital in the U.S. That’s a horrible and almost diametrically opposite take on what is really the case.

            • Thaddeus,
              This is really more of a magician’s trick. Watch one hand, while I perform sleight of hand with another.

              This obsession with women being 50% of the power brokers of society leads a very mis-guided message. This obsession that 90% of the elite are men, leads to the VERY INCORRECT idea that men as a whole have it good.

              Nothing could be further from the truth. When we take the metrics we use to indicate blacks are powerless and disenfranchised and apply them to genders we find that it is men NOT WOMEN who are the black genders of society.
              Men are:
              35% of college graduates
              80% of all victims of violent crimes
              90% of incarcerated
              80% of all suicides
              95% of all work-place fatalaties
              80% of the homeless

              The demographic who has it the worst is black men. Black men are 5 times likelier to be murdered than white men (and 14 times likelier than white women).
              Did you know that the oldest nationally accredited black fraternity sent a letter beseeching Obama to create an Office for men and boys as he did for women and girls?

              Isn’t it amazing that Obama turned a blind eye to them, yet knuckled under quickly to NOW demanding 41% of the $800 billion stimulus to go to women oriented fields, when they were nearly untouched by the recession? How is worsening gender disparities in unemployment further to women’s advantage egalitarian?

              This concentration on breaking women into the old boys network is leaving a swath of men who are oppressed and marginalized.

            • This obsession that 90% of the elite are men, leads to the VERY INCORRECT idea that men as a whole have it good.

              Agreed. Which is why I go for an intersectional analysis rather than a feminist analysis and why I believe kyriarchy rather than patriarchy better describes the society we live in.

              Men are 35% of college graduates.

              Source, please. That does not at all jibe with what I’ve heard, but hey, it could be possible.

            • Wellokaythen says:

              I think the idea of kyriarchy is pretty interesting. I tend to be skeptical of any global model of human power that fits into just one word, but the idea that everything boils down to gender difference (It’s patriarchy! No, It’s matriarchy!) seems pretty flawed, as is the idea that everything boils down to socioeconomic class. I find it hard to make useful, sweeping, globalized statements that put all women in the same category, regardless of income level, or put all poor people in the same category regardless of gender. Not to mention all sorts of other differences and distinctions people make.

              I would argue that a middle class American woman has much more in common with a middle-class American man than she does with a poor woman in Bangladesh. At the same time, she maybe more in common with other American middle-class women than she does with her own husband.

              I can see the intellectual appeal of strict gender-archy theory or absolute class-conflict theory, because what looks like circular reasoning to me looks like air-tight argument to other people. There’s no breaking through a circular argument, because the proof always supports the argument! The fact that I disagree with patriarchal/matriarchal theory just goes to show that I must be brainwashed by the system. My disagreement therefore proves the theory, I guess.

            • Wellokaythen:

              You’ll find that most privileged white middle class feminists shy away from kyriarchy specifically because it proves that they’re not victims, but actually have about 90% of the advantages of white middle class males (in fact I would contend white middle class women have more privilege but that’s another debate) and puts them 2nd on the power pyramid.

              They don’t like to see the justifications for more and more female-only privileges aimed at white middle class women go

            • go *poof* and disappear

            • Blame anyone but the Ruling Class-archy.

            • I’m seriously thinking of proposing a three part series on kyriarchy to the editors, of TGMPM, Wellokay. I’m only worried that they’ll find it too heavy and theoretical.

            • As for violence being funny when it happens to men, especially if it’s sexual violence, this is a MRM point that I’m 100% behind.

              The social tendency to ignore, glamorize or find humorous the most appalling violence, as long as it’s directed against a male victim, is absolutely unjustified and has been almost completely ignored by feminists and even by gender studies in general. We easily descry sexual violence against women, but against men…? Hell, even the most outrageous and egregious examples are routinely handwaved away.

              I am much more worried about this than I am about men’s supposed impending pauperism.

            • I would also be worried about father’s custody rights.
              Men raised in fatherless homes are MANY times more likely to engage in violence than men raised with a father.
              If violence does become the word of the day, it will mostly be these men doing it.

              Look at the most patriarchal country: Japan.
              I have never been there, but I have read a lot of articles (not recently, several years ago) about people traveling there.

              Even in very impoverished neighborhoods, you do not have to worry about your safety there. There are far less violent people and many more father filled homes.

              Fathers and mothers parent in a way that compliments each other. Mothers nurturing and supportive, fathers in a way that supports exploration, goal setting, expectations, discipline, punishment, and enforcing a moral code (like protecting the weak).

              It’s very sad that fathers have come to mean so little in this society (I don’t know what Brazil is like) here in the US

        • Thaddeus,
          I think you’re casting aspersions upon hook unfairly.
          I just found this link:
          http://she-conomy.com/report/facts-on-women/

          The second paragraph reads just as hook produced it.
          There is no “among” comment.

          Can you reproduce the link to the article you referenced that had the “among” comment?
          Sometimes articles are loose quotes of other articles or studies and things get jumbled.

          Off the cuff if there is any dirty bs going on, it looks to be you (from what I have uncovered).

          • Dear John,

            The original article can be found here, entire: http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6432978/Women-s-work-MassMutual-s.html

            You will notice that it does not support the claim that Hook is making.

            You’ll also notice that if Hook had doen the decent and reasonable thing and shown his sources, I wouldn’t have gone to the original article. He only brought up the “facts on women” article, however, AFTER I went to the original source and found that his claim didn’t match the facts presented by the Mass Mutual people.

            Now, this is a guy who has repeatedly chided me for not doing “due dilligence” and yet the first time I check one of his claims, it turns out that its a gross mistatement of the original source material.

            How many of Hook’s other claims do you think I can debunk if I were to have access to the original sources, John? I’m guessing quite a few. And I’m also guessing that Hook knows this and that this is why he’s so unaccountably coy about providing us with sources for his claims.

            As for the dirt you’ve supposedly dug up on me, feel free to present it. I’ve been writing on the internet under my own name now for about 5 years and I have pissed a few people off – particulary folks who are wedded to one or another dogma and who don’t appreciate me hobbling their hobby horses. Just yesterday, in fact, I found a site which claims that my wife doesn’t exist and that the photos of her posted all over the internet are, in fact, of a hired prostitute. So I’d be very interested in whatever smoking gunb you think you’ve uncovered, John.

            • Okay, I read the massmutual study highlights.
              However, it doesn’t just say that senior women over 50 are among yada yada.

              It says senior women are among the group of people OVER 50 who yada yada.
              That vastly changes the number as it would exclude anybody under 50.

              That changes the group of over 50 women from (in my mind’s eye as I was watching you two debate) that represented like 20% to something more like 55% of this group or more.

              Another highlight from the massmutual page:
              * High-net-worth women account for 39% of the country’s top wealth earners; 2.5 million of them have combined assets of $4.2 trillion.

              In other words at the top (and seemingly even at the near top) women are closing to within 50%. However, the bottom of the rungs of power are still dominated by men.

              Men are 80% of the homes, and 80% of suicides.
              The male provider role is ONLY good for the upper echelons of men. Invisible to many (especially feminists) are the “washouts” at the provider role who are powerless and disenfranchised (particularly black men). When women are homeless, or unemployed they get assistance. When men are part of the powerless and disenfranchised they are told to take it like a man.
              Women’s greatest strength is her appearance of weakness.
              Men’s greatest weakness is his appearance of strength.
              Our refusal to help men in need denies their very humanity. And this is all part and parcel of feminisms fanatical war to make sure 50% of the top and near top are women.

              Yet when we talk about shattering pre-conceived gender roles FOR MEN, feminists are nowhere to be found. Or, when you can find them–they are actively opposing changing gender roles for men as in their fanatical attacks against shared parenting.

          • Wow. With those kind of crappy secondary and even tertiary sources underlying your opinions, Hook, maybe you need to do some “due dilligence” and go directly to the sources?

            You’re really in no shape to complain about other peoples’ ignorance when you’re quoting crap yourself, man.

        • OK, Hook, let’s take ONE claim, at random, from that MRA bricolage you’ve linked me to. How about the McCall and Land piece “Trends in White male adolescent, young-adult, and elderly suicide: Are there common underlying structural factors?” This article seems to be splattered all over the daddy-rights and MRM bloggosphere
          and the most common quote from it – presented pretty much everywhere – is this:

          “A family structure index — a composite index based on the annual rate of children involved in divorce and the percentage of families with children present that are female-headed — is a strong predictor of suicide among young adult and adolescent white males.”,

          Now, I propose to go to the original research and write up my findings about it here in TGMPM (presuming they’d like the article). But before I do, I’d like you to state what you think that quote actually means with regards to men and boys, because I don’t want to be roasted, later, for supposedly not understanding your position.

          How about it?

          Are you up for the challenge?

    • Hook, when you can accurately report the information presented by the articles you use to support your points, come talk to me. The fact that you have to change the quotes you present so that they say something completely different tells this old professor volumes about the quality of your “analysis”. If you were to present that kind of crap in a classroom, you’d get an “F”. Were i presented in a court of law here in Brazil, it be chargeable as a crime (false ideology, i.e. knowingly adulterating the content of proof).

      Why should I take you seriously when you apparently can’t even accurately cut and paste?

    • By the way, Hook, when you repeatedly call your intellectual opponents “liars” and then get caught changing the text of the article you cite as “proof” for your opinions, you’re really in no position to lecture anyone about either “due diligence” or abusive behavior.

      • Hook, I’m not going to page through a ton of articles, the most of which are poorly written based on even worse science. You can link me to what you consider to be the BEST article showing proof regarding your claims of fatherlessness, or not bother, as you please.

        As for changing the text, if you didn’t change it, then the MRA source you are citing changed it. Go directly to the ORIGINAL source (MassMutual Financial Group–2007) and you will quickly see that the information is not as you have reported it.

        Whether it is you or your secondary MRA source which changed MMFG’s report is immaterial to me: either way, it proves that that the stats you are citing here might as well be pulled straight from your bunghole. You are not checking to see if they are correct. In fact, you can’t even be arsed to read the original sources, apparently: you just quote MRA cites as if they were gospel.

        Did someone here mention “politically correct” before…?

        Worst case, you are lying. Best case, you are a sloppy researcher who doesn’t bother to go to primary sources. Either way, it doesn’t auger well for a man who chides others to do “due dilligence” and who complains about being the target of abuse. When you cite false stats and misquote primary sources, you are not only abusing my patience and the patience of every other thinking poster on here, Hook, you are simply giving further weight to the oft-repeated feminist claims that MRAs exagerate and/or outright lie when it comes to giving out “facts”.

        • The site which, I remind you, you linked us to here as proof of your opinions.

          Hook, it seems pretty clear to me that anyone can get you to believe pretty much anything, as long as it shows women coming out ahead of men. If it does, you’ll not check the source or show any skepticism whatsoever.

          Meanwhile, when othe people misstate themselves, quote bad information, or are simply wrong, you choose to call them “liars”.

          I AM considering the sourse here, Hook. As I’ve said many times, feminists and MRAs tend to believe what they WANT to believe. As Andrea so elegantly puts it in her article here, you folks live in distinct epistemological communities. If a comment supports your ideological view of the world, you accept accritically. Likewise, if it undermines your view, you either ignore it or attack it.

          You are both “politically correct” in your own way. Better yet (to use a common Brazilian term), both MRAs and feminists engage in ideological patrolling to ensure that their views are accepted and their opponents’ ignored based on rhetoric and not proof.

          I’m increasingly biased against both groups because I am a scientist, first and foremost, and am not interested in dressing up anyone’s particular political hobby horse in bright, happy colors.

    • Thaddeus

      “Proof…?”

      Women at the top of business outearn men – Saturday, December 13, 2008
      By Torsten Ove, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

      A Carnegie Mellon University study has concluded that women executives out-earn their male counterparts.

      The study, which examined 16,000 executives over 14 years, found that women at the top of the business world bring in a bit more than men and are promoted at the same rate, countering the popular notion that women earn less than men for the same work.

      “That common perception is not borne out by this study,” said Robert A. Miller, professor of economics and strategy and one of the authors. “If you’re looking for evidence of gender discrimination in executive promotion and compensation, it’s not happening there.”

      The study, “Are There Glass Ceilings for Female Executives?,” was released last month by Carnegie Mellon’s Tepper School of Business but hasn’t been published yet.

      The largest empirical analysis of the top echelons of publicly traded companies determined that women earned about $100,000 more per year than men of the same age, educational background and experience. h ttp://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08348/934974-28.stm

      There are lots of these sorts of findings.

      • How many of those 16,000 execs were women, Mark?

        The gripe about wage disparities is not usually about people at or near the top of the socio-economic pile: it has to do with why certain female-oriented professions typically earn less than like-skilled male-oriented professions.

        I don’t know a single person out there who complains that female execs are getting grossly underpaid in comparison to male execs. I HAVE heard women complain that there are very few female execs.

        And I what do you reckon that if I go to that source, I’m going to find relevant information that you’re not quoting here…?

        So far, my experience with MRAs and “these sorts of findings” is that you guys do a very partial and prejudiced reading of them. Will you prove me wrong, Mark? I have my doubts, but let’s see….

        • (hope this one goes through)

          Thaddeus

          Why does it matter that you have heard women complaining about the number of female executives verses male when the number is relative to the number of women that chose to be executives verses that of males and relevent information like what? that women that chose not to be executives dont become exectivies, or that women that chose to become partial house wives on the strength of the combined wage make less visible income to those that work part time?

          • edit

            or that women that chose to become partial house wives on the strength of the combined wage make less visible income to those that work full time?

          • Mark, I am disappoint. :D

            Seriously, I don’t want to be accused of intellectual bullying later, so can you please do this?

            Read that article about executive wages carefully and then clearly and concisely explain what you think that study proves and what you think this indicates with regards to gender and economics in ngeneral.

            Then I’ll give you my analysis of the article from a social scientific viewpoint.

            But seriously, man: this is the second time I’ve had an MRA refer me to “proof” that was nothing like what he said it was. It’s getting kind of annoying.

            • Thaddues

              The “proof” that’s been offered to you is that women when they chose to, they can our earn men, (Young childless women in cities, and that chose to get to the top of business and in a host of individual professions, some of the very surprising, truck driving for instance), and the women that make up the wage gap, are on a combined wage which is half theirs anyway.

              And you are talking about comparable jobs paying the different wages based on which sex dominated them… cleaning offices and laboring outside in all weather for example, are not really all that comparable.

              You have been give 10s of links to articles about studies on wage gap at this stage.

              Anyway, fathers rights is quite important, we have all been duped into letting a conversion about fathers rights become one about wage gap myths by the slight of hand of the author. I’d rather that the fathers rights issues got some space in the comments section.

            • It’s all a metter of simple choice, then, John? Is that what you think that study on executive wages is saying?

              I know you`ve flooded us with links, John. I can only take them one at a time. Mark seems to like the exec wages link, so let`s start there, shall we?

              Or would you rather not discuss this proof and just have us all take it on faith? Because so far, I have to say, the MRA record for links here on this economic topic has been pretty poor.

            • “Because so far, I have to say, the MRA record for links here on this economic topic has been pretty poor”

              Thaddeus,. you’re being dishonest now, one piece of shitty sourcing isn’t a record of sourcing, and that piece of sourcing makes up I’m estimating around 1/30 of the sourcing that has been done for this thread.

            • This is the second piece of shi77y sourcing MRAs have done on this thread, Mark. The first was a claim that Mass Mutual says elderly women control 75% of the U.S.’ investment capital.

              Now, my question is this: are you going to step up to bat behind that “shi77y source” (your words) that you linked us to regarding executive wages, or can we discard that and move on to ANOTHER one of your “shi77y sources”?

              Because I’m willing to lay you dollars to donuts, Mark, that at least 2/3rds of the sources you linked us to regarding women’s supposedly superior wage-earning ability are what you’d call “shi77y sources”. I’m willing to read and critique them one by one if you’re courageous enough to stand up for them.

              So which one would you like me to tackle next, presuming that you’re bowing out on the exec salaries study?

              And if you AREN’T bowing out on the exec salaries study, if you’re going to stand by it, then I would like you to concisely explain what you think it proves and what relevance this has to economic disparaties between the genders.

              Again, I don’t want to hear complaints of intellectual bullying later when I critique that study.

            • I’m not bowing out, I’m suggesting that we allow men to discuss fathers rights on this thread, fathers rights is not a feminist issue and its not wage gap. That was a cynical appropriation and a slight of hand that we have allowed ourselves to be sucked in by…. this Trojan horse of a publication is constantly doing this to its readers..

              The mass mutual thing was four or five days ago now and you are still using it dismiss the other 30 or so pieces of sourcing that have been posted here.

              I think what we are seeing are your own biases and loyalties to your own particular hobby horse.

            • Mark, I’m talking about analyzing the links you posted. I’ve already read through most of them and I’ve noticed a common trend: most of them don’t say what you seem to think they say.

              Now, I’m one guy: I can’t analyze them all simultaneously. I can only do it one at a time. I took the exec salary link as my statring point, but if you’re reluctant to start there, I’ll be happy to start at ANY link you choose.

              Now, I agree that we can discuss father’s rights. But you folks brought up the wage gap and why it’s relevant to this issue, not me. It seems to me that you’re now hemming and hawing and looking for a way to not get your head handed to you on a platter, intellectually speaking.

              I mean, if you REALLY thought those links proved what you claim they prove, you’d be telling me to pony on up, wouldn’t you?

              Instead, you’re looking around for a graceful way to leave this topic behind.

              So again, Mark, why all this reluctance to discuss the proof you’ve posted? If it’s so solid, its ahouls speak for itself, right?

              I’m willing to bet that the problem is that you haven’t even read most of those links you posted, let alone understood what they’re saying. You just did a quick google and that was that. You didn’t expect to actually get CALLED on this crap, did you?

            • Thaddeus

              The proof is there that women, when they do the same work, often get paid more than their so called “oppressors” – young single women in cities and women at the top of business, for example.

              You can make stereotypical feminist arguments like pointing to the fact that married women often choose to engage the tax farm system less and so pay less direct tax and therefore are economically oppressed, while ignoring the facts that these women are actually on the family wage which is a combined wage, have more rights over the property, can dismiss the tax farm worker on a whim and take control of the property, have disproportionate control over how the family wage is spent and are generally better heeled and clothed than their “oppressors” or try to insist that the market doesn’t adjust for dangerous and extreme work, while providing no proof.

              Anyway for the umpteenth time, the OP has rather cynically tried to make fathers rights about wage gap, so lets not help her obscure and appropriate fathers rights, there is another thread for wage gap myths. Enough sourcing has been done on this this thread on wage and nobodies buying “I can’t go to those sources because I already know they say”, so lets make sure some of the fathers rights messages aren’t buried underneath your charging around protecting feminist wage gap and oppression dogma.

            • Mark, claiming that “the proof is there” isn’t the dame thing as discussing that proof. If those articles DO NOT say what you claim they say, the proof isn’t there, is it?

              So I invite you to choose any one of those articles and we’ll take a look at what it really says, as opposed to what you claim it says. We’ll go to original sources, if at all possible. And then we’ll look at a couple of other articles.

              In short, we’ll really dig into your claims.

              If you honestly believe that “the proof is there”, Mark, then I can’t understand why you’d be reluctant to do this. Unless, of course, you already know that the articles do NOT claim what you say they claim.

              So pick an article, Mark: any article linked above. Let’s go!

            • Thaddeus

              You have set the bar at inconclusive proof, set another rule where you can’t follow links because you know what they say already, set another one where female execs out earning male execs doesn’t matter because you have only heard women complaining that there aren’t enough female execs… and so on.

              You’ve received decent sources/proof of

              Women out earning men when they do the same work…

              and women controlling most the money that comes in off the family wage when they chose not to do the same work…. and its no secret that in that situation the tax farm component can be evicted from the property by her on a whim.

              And Ive also asked you several times to continue this on the wage gap myth thread, so that we are not helping those you sympathize with obscure and appropriate fathers rights.

            • How about this bar

              You back your dogma based assertions that

              1) the job market doesn’t adjust for dangerous and extreme working conditions.
              2) that saying that fatherlessness is a strong predictor of adult dysfunction is outrageous
              3) a women that can have her working partner evicted from the property the couple share on a whim and controls the majority of the money that her partner earns, is the less powerful component of the unit.

            • You have set the bar at inconclusive proof…

              Yeah, that’s some bar, man: let’s see what the studies actually say as opposed to what MArk says they say.

              Whooh.

              Can’t imagine why anyone would find that reasonable. You’re right: looking objectively at claims to proof is an inexusably high bar. Why, that would make this sort of thing SCIENCE instead of just warmed-over political rhetoric.

              And neither MRAs nor feminists really want scientists poking into their claims, do they?

              You back your dogma based assertions that

              1) the job market doesn’t adjust for dangerous and extreme working conditions.

              So let me get this straight: you’re asking me to prove a negative? What could logically be accepted as proof of that?

              But here’s a very good example for you: agrigcultural work, particularly sugar cane cutting, is one of the most dangerous jobs in Brasil. It’s also one of the worst paid. Where’s the market bonus for dnagerous and extreme conditions in that?

              2) that saying that fatherlessness is a strong predictor of adult dysfunction is outrageous

              Where’s the beef, Mark? I’m not saying “outrageous”: I’m saying show the proof. The links you’ve posted are a promiscuous mash of out-of-context quotes, poorly interpretted studies and outright lies with a few nuggets of good stuff tossed in here and there. I’d like you to choose ONE of them and we’ll take a solid look at what it actually proves. If you’re afraid to do that, I think we can reasonably say you’re scared that your so-called “evidence” doesn’t match your claims.

              Oh, and by the way: “linked to” and “caused by” are two completely different things which you seem to confuse.

              a women that can have her working partner evicted from the property the couple share on a whim and controls the majority of the money that her partner earns, is the less powerful component of the unit.

              “On a whim”, huh? I asserted that, did I? Where exactly?

        • Thaddeus,
          You’re putting forth a straw man. If you have a contention that fields are deliberately under paid (because they are female dominated) then show us your study that states that.

          I have already tendered many links that show the wage gap entirely due to women’s life/work balance choices they make during their life.

          Now you’re claiming that entire fields are put on the sh*tty end of the stick because they’re female dominated? Talk is cheap, produce a study (not another feminist echo chamber article stating the same thing, but a study).

          • John, I have made no contentions at all yet, only reaspnable hypotheses. I`m discussing YOUR hypothesis that women are economically in an equal or stronger position to men. That`s the proof I`m looking at for now.

            I`ll take your studies one at a time. Right now, I`m talking about the exec salary study. Or would you rather I looked at another study? Citing tens of studies via google doesn`t make any difference if they are all or mostly shite.

            So let`s see if they are valid, shall we? Or are you seriously saying we should take these things on faith because you provided urls?

            • The comment I’m specifically referring to is:
              The gripe about wage disparities is not usually about people at or near the top of the socio-economic pile: it has to do with why certain female-oriented professions typically earn less than like-skilled male-oriented professions.

              I saw a little of this covered in Warren Farrell’s book The Myth of Male Power.
              It is covered much more clearly in his new book:”Why men earn more. I remember seeing an interview between John Stossel and Warren Farrel on 20/20.

              If I remember correctly in 23 of 25 attributes of jobs that tend to bring extra compensation (besides skill) men hold positions of 60%-90% majorities in those categories.

              These are things like: travelling for your job, willingness to re-locate, long commutes, working in inclement weather, working near danger (steel foundries, chemicals, heights, cave-ins, etc..), leading a team, working against a hard deadline, etc…

              I don’t have this information to hand. You could probably go borrow that book at a library if you really want to educate yourself.

              It seems obvious to me that the marketplace pays extra for those things that the vast majority of people don’t want to do.
              So….yes a garbage man may potentially make more than a female administrative assistant despite that fact that she has all the requisite skills to keep a business running.
              This isn’t “female-dominated fields pay less” this is “the market compensates for crap tasks” and mostly men are filling those tasks.

              Once again, I don’t see anybody stating men are the victims that they are 95% of on-the-job deaths, 95% of on-the-job injuries, and live 7 years shorter (mostly exactly due to things like black-lung, working near pesticides, etc..). I don’t understand why (well actually I do understand–it’s to stir up male hatred) feminists golden measuring stick is $$$$$$$ when we live in a communal property marriage society, and the evidence is so CLEARLY available and evident that many men pay a steep price for this extra income.

              In fact, in my estimation taking 10-15 years off your life for working in a mine isn’t worth double the salary of working in a cushy office. This just goes to show you how far men are behind women in asking the question that Betty Friedan’s “Feminine Mystique” made housewives ask: Is there anything more?

              Men are 40 years behind women in even thinking about a movement. But it IS coming. There are too many very important problems that plaque men which have been ignored for far too long.

              And as I’ve pointed out in other threads on this blog, feminists are not going to help–or when they do get involved their main purpose is to stymie progress.

              It’s really very sad.

            • Dear John, I’vbe read quite a bit of Warren Farrell and he’d be the first person to admit that men earn more money than women. His thesis is NOT that gender economics are equal.

              Furthermore, one or another of those “extra compensation” attrbiutes can be found in most jobs, male of female. Oddly enough, they generally only tend to be compensated for in high-status male work. If the work is not high status and/or male compensation typically doesn’t occur. Let’s look at them, shall we?

              Travelling for your job: sex worker, migrant worker, cleaning person (many make HUGE commutes).

              Willingness to re-locate: housewife

              Long commutes: almost any urban job these days. My maid works all over the greater RdJ metro area.

              Working in inclement weather: any outside job. Agricultural labor, notoriously.

              Working near danger: nurses, ANY job at a chemical factory

              Leading a team: any job that requires teamwork. Maids frequently work in teams.

              Working against a hard deadline: these days, pretty much any job can have this, but let me give you one that’s a huge and well-known stressor in this regards: food service.

              Farrell’s thesis isn’t that women make the same as men, but that sexists and traditional cultural choices channel men and women into certain fields. The fields that were traditionally “women’s work” are indeed lower paid fields. Farrell doesn’t dispute this, AFAIK, and I’d like to see some sort of direct quote if you think he does.

              By the way, if you think that the market compensates for crap tasks, think again: there’s a huge ammount of horrible work that is very, very poorly paid. The market DOES NOT compensate for most shi7 work.

            • Thaddeus,
              Since the comments have been all chopped up, I will re-post your comments, then add my own.

              **
              Dear John, I’vbe read quite a bit of Warren Farrell and he’d be the first person to admit that men earn more money than women. His thesis is NOT that gender economics are equal.

              Furthermore, one or another of those “extra compensation” attrbiutes can be found in most jobs, male of female. Oddly enough, they generally only tend to be compensated for in high-status male work. If the work is not high status and/or male compensation typically doesn’t occur. Let’s look at them, shall we?

              Travelling for your job: sex worker, migrant worker, cleaning person (many make HUGE commutes).

              Willingness to re-locate: housewife

              Long commutes: almost any urban job these days. My maid works all over the greater RdJ metro area.

              Working in inclement weather: any outside job. Agricultural labor, notoriously.

              Working near danger: nurses, ANY job at a chemical factory

              Leading a team: any job that requires teamwork. Maids frequently work in teams.

              Working against a hard deadline: these days, pretty much any job can have this, but let me give you one that’s a huge and well-known stressor in this regards: food service.

              Farrell’s thesis isn’t that women make the same as men, but that sexists and traditional cultural choices channel men and women into certain fields. The fields that were traditionally “women’s work” are indeed lower paid fields. Farrell doesn’t dispute this, AFAIK, and I’d like to see some sort of direct quote if you think he does.

              By the way, if you think that the market compensates for crap tasks, think again: there’s a huge ammount of horrible work that is very, very poorly paid. The market DOES NOT compensate for most shi7 work.

              **
              Warren Farrell also does something else. He also highlights what he calls male disposability, and calls some of the more dangerous jobs the “death professions”. In other words Warren Farrel does something that you do not: He highlights the very high price that men pay to earn those higher wages. He challenges the primarily feminist concept that work outside the house is a bed of roses for men. More on this later.

              As far as your examples are concerned, I’m just going to cover a few of these to make my point.
              Working near danger: Nurses. Care to back that up with any kind of citation? I have never seen nursing mentioned as 1 of the most dangerous jobs in even the top 20, I would doubt it would even make it into the top 50.
              Working near danger: Chemical plant employee. Strangely I worked at a chemical plant. You know what? The chance of an explosion is incredibly remote (the only instance where EVERYBODY at a chemical plant could be in danger). You know what? Most everybody there knew that those closest to the chemicals daily were most in danger. While explosions are are very rare, SPILLS happen all the time. Those working very near to chemicals are almost always men.

              Housewife is not a an occupation. It is a choice to make yourself dependent upon somebody else.
              Cleaning person/leading a team: Maid
              Here is where I will necessarily get long-winded. Simple logic would dictate that the MORE of these 25 or so compensation categories a job entails, the higher a persons compensation will be. So while maids may travel for their jobs, they also are lacking many of those categories. In fact, a maid has many convenience factors. Managing your own flexible schedule. One of my child-hood friends mom was a maid and she made good money and fixed her own schedule, and almost always beat her husband home who was a welder at a factory. Often times they have the option of only working 3 or 4 days, and maybe 4 hour days.

              Agricultural labor? Those are primarily men? All you have demonstrated is that even among low value jobs, men will typically be the ones doing the back-breaking labor near pesticides and outdoors with long fixed schedules, women will be the ones working indoors with flexible schedules.

              What you have done is simply cherry picked particular occupations that have ONE high-compensation factor, but many of the other attributes of the job are decidedly in the convenience category.

              Working against a hard deadline: food service. Will somebody lose their job because they forgot fries w/that order? Obviously, having ONE high-compensation factor will not greatly influence things when the other compensation factors are in the convenience side of the meter. Comparing a food service worker to lets say: an architect who has to live on-site several states from home several months, lead a team, outdoors, against a hard deadline (w/his job/promotion hanging in the balance) may be working 8,9 or 10 of the high compensation factors.

              These high compensation jobs that frequently tear people apart are freely available to women. Yet women choose not to make these choices.

              Also, you somewhat mis-state Farrell. Farrell doesn’t state that men & women are “channeled” into different fields, but make different choices. Also, the vast majority of his work points to the fact of our under-appreciation of men working the death professions, and under-scoring society’s poor concern with males as the disposable sex. None of which I have seen you do.

              In fact, there is one chapter (in Myth of Male Power) with the title (something like) male disposability = bad ecology. In this chapter he states that if societies had more concern about male disposability maybe the Exxon Valdeus spill and Chernobyl would never have happened. In both of those instances, there were detailed studies & reports done to keep them from happening. The lead cause in both instances was worker exhaustion. It’s funny, because about a month before the BP oil spill I was listening to NPR about oil rig workers.

              The article was talking about the lack of safety features. It also mentioned that the fines for breaking safety rules were often much much cheaper than making the needed upgrades to avoid the fines. This particular article talked about a man who had half his head caved in from an exploding valve who’s family was only entitled to $1800 compensation due to special wavers and other benefits the oil companies enjoy.

              Lest you forget 11 men died in the explosion in the BP oil spill. Farrell’s point was that eventually society’s total disregard for male disposability was one day going to result in something disastrous that couldn’t be fixed.

              In the wrap-up here are my main points. There is no wage gap ala direct gender discrimination. There is a difference between the genders when you compare the total earnings of men vs the total earnings of women. These are due to different life choices. (If you want to re-visit wage gap via means of DIRECT gender discrimination, then I would recommend you start with trying to debunk the consad report. This is the largest report ever done, with controls for the most variables of employees life/work balance choices. The upshot was the “unexplainable” portion of wage disparity (to women’s disadvantage) dwindled to a statistically insignificant 2% after controlling for choices).

              Now, if you want to talk about choices that disadvantage people, or socialization then let’s talk about it in a real manner about BOTH genders.
              And this is the crux of the matter:

              I see your point as this: women (through socialization and/or whatever forces) EARN (important distinction) less money than men. This disadvantages women and therefore they are victims.
              You know what? I’ll give you that point. Women are INDEED disadvantaged by their own choices and ultimately are victims.

              However, it seems like there is included an implied point that only women are victims (when we look at work/life balance decisions by both genders), or that women are greatly more victimized.

              This simply is not so. I refuse this point whole-heartedly. If a miner has climbed the ladder to foreman over the past 10 years & makes $80,000 a year and has bought a $400k house, does he put his wife up in a 1bedroom apartment in the ghetto? No, she is right there beside him. His good fortune is HER GOOD FORTUNE too! But the steep price he pays is his alone. Only he will die of blacklung at the age of 45.

              The simple fact is that with any form of power also comes increased responsibility. Is a person who is a boss powerful? In some regards.
              Is a mother powerful because she essentially holds a childs life in her control. In some regards.

              But all power comes with responsibility. If we were to tell a mother that the more children she has the more powerful she is, she would laugh in our face (and rightly so).
              But, when we tell a man that he has more power if he has 100 people under him, instead of 10 (for only 5% more pay) HE FALLS FOR IT!

              The man’s greater economic power comes at greater responsibility. A male professional, or man in the death profession has earned himself more obligation, while securing for his wife much more freedom. Free time, greatly expanded choices at no personal cost to her own body and mind.

              Men pay a STEEP price for their greater money. Farrells main point was that we need to stop the lack of respect of men who abuse their bodies and make them safe to do their work. When we do that, not only will we be saving men’s lives, but fostering a better environment for women to enter these fields.

              If you want to fix the wage gap, the first, last, and best thing action to take would be to support legislation to make these jobs safer so women can make similar choices to men, not this intense vilification of men who are only making a supreme sacrifice (breaking their bodies and minds) for their families. Men are not women’s oppressors, but their emancipators!

              I have mentioned several times about the fact that men are 95% of the on-the-job deaths and injuries without any response from you.

              That seems strange for a researcher. It also seems strange for somebody who mentions intersectionality and kyriarchy (I thought you were a BIG PICTURE guy?). Like many feminist advocate researchers you seem to start with your conclusions and work backwards from there ignoring any evidence you don’t like.

              If DOLLARS are going to be your ONLY metric to determine who is the victim OF COURSE your results are going to show that only (or mostly) women are the victims in the work/life balance choices–but it wouldn’t be the TRUTH.
              For somebody who is a researcher, you have these big old blinders on your head.

              This is my main beef with feminism. You have many of the rank-and-file who are actually good-hearted people who want to change the world for the better. However, their views include a lace curtain that covers any evidence that involves men. Feminism is so gynocentric, that (for men) the only outcomes that are possible are something that is (at best) a movement that is well-intentioned but horribly broken to (at worst) advocates like READER a woman who is horribly bigoted and biased and opposes any help for men no matter the harm to even the children of divorce.

  8. Andrea: Thank you for this article.

    Unlike some other authors who appear on this site, you make your points without talking down to a portion of your audience. I never feel like you’re clubbing anyone over the head with your views, and even when I don’t fully agree with you I’m appreciative of what you’re saying.

    I think what you’ve laid out in this piece is very true, especially regarding the disconnect between feminists and MRAs. What’s interesting for me personally is that before reading the GMP, I had never heard of the MRA movement. But because I dared to disagree with some of the feminist authors on this site, I started getting comments and emails accusing me of being an ignorant, card-carrying MRA member. Apparently if you disagree with one side, you’re automatically on the other. And that’s not right.

    I always look forward to your articles and I hope there are more to come.

    • Dear Daddy,

      I had exactly the same experience, although my connect to being trashed came at the hands of self-acclaimed feminists who categorized me as an MRA on P.Z. Myer’s Pharyngula page.

      Frankly, I would have never even heard about the current bafafá with the MRM or have been moved to write my article here if it hadn’t been for Myers making snide remarks about them. Some of his commentators took my reactions to that as an excuse to attack me and then go running to Papa claiming that they had been victimized when they set me up to make it look as if I’d “outted” the true identity of one of them.

      What’s interesting about this is that supposedly women have less power than men, right? But I don’t hear any reports of women getting banned from mainstream non-MRA sites for being feminists. Being perceived as an MRA, however, will easily get you attacked, insulted, spam-bombed and, ultimately, banned from many sites which see themselves as progressive.

      What’s worse, all one needs to do to get slapped with the MRA label is say, “Hey, look, men deal with some pretty heavy issues, too.” In my case it was an ironic comment on the whole Hymowitz (SP?) “stoned slacker” thing to the effect that, not long ago, men were being castigated as sexist for NOT giving up work and careers and now they’re being castigated for doing precisely that. I concluded that men might as well “relax and enjoy it”, because no matter what they did, a certain portion of women were going to call them sexist, immature, or whatever.

      That was enough, in the eyes of several Pharyngula commentators, to call me a “whiny MRA” and to work to get me banned.

      And remember: this is an atheist community of supposed free thinkers who pride themselves on being open-minded and rational.

      Not.

      The vehemence of the symbolic violence which was directed at me had to be seen to believed. People were saying things like “I hope you die painfully” and massively F-bombing me. And ANYTHING I said in response, no matter how calm, was immediately twisted somehow into a supposed cynical abusive attack on my part. The “relax and enjoy it” comment, for example, was interpreted by several commentators as me defending rape or some other such nonsense.

      The whole thing made me go “Hell, I haven’t listened much to MRAs up to now, but if this is the crap they are dealing with, maybe they actually have a point regarding their accusations that they are being violently attacked”. People on the site were constantly talking about “triggers” and other such stuff. The way I was treated triggered painful memories of having to deal with Communist sectarians here in Brazil in the past. These people would cheerfully attack folks who were their objective allies over minor points of dogma – even physically attack. Brings a whole new perspective to Andrea’s comment about “epistemological communities”. Down here, we call it “ideological patrolling”, which is a far better term than “political correctness” in my opinion.

      To put it bluntly, there is a significant number of men and women who self-identifiy as “feminist” and who believe that any opinion which isn’t EXACTLY the same as their’s is evil and must be met with as much symbolic violence as possible.

      Given that feminism is nowhere near a majority position among North Americans in general and given the attacks women’s rights are suffering from the extreme right, the whole experience made me wonder what, exactly, such vehemence is supposed to prove. It even made me wonder if there aren’t certain conservatives out there masquerading as “feminist” agents provacateurs.

      • Andrea, I think this is a great piece that takes a uniform look in the areas both MRAs and Feminists struggle in. For me, the end message is that we all want to be treated equal, improve our quality of life, without loosing our individual identities just because we might be advocates of MRAs, Feminism or neither; just men and women who see gender social issues.

        I don’t have to be feminist to think that women are treated unfairly in certain areas. I don’t have to be an MRA advocate to see that men are treated unfairly in certain areas. But somehow, this seems to escape certain people. If you advocate for women, your a dirty Feminist. If you advocate for men, your a dirty MRA. I can’t just exist onto myself with ideas that might span both movements.

        Thaddeus, you’ve had negative experiences with certain feminists categorizing you as an MRA for sharing ideas, I’ve experienced the same backlash being called a Feminist, not in a positive way, but in a negative derogatory fashion for sharing my own thoughts. Accusing people of being “MRAS” or “Feminists” is a negative fashion is a quick, easy and lazy way to blow them off. When people have nothing better to say to you, they label you and brush you aside. It’s an easy manipulative way to not hold a conversation about the real subject and deflect true conversation. But it’s not only something that happens to one side. Being perceived as a “feminist” also gets you attacked, insulted or discredited.

        I post at an MRA site sometimes. I have not been banned. But I suspect they perversely like my presence there as a way to reinforce their opinions about a woman’s role. Even in the most mundane of comments where I just answer another poster about my life, when they ask, I get rated with tons of “dislikes”. For nothing that was even politically or gender motivated. Another poster told me to “get back in the kitchen and make myself useful”. All for having an open and fair dialogue. I was not threatened with death, but I have had many other derogatory comments made.

        On this site, on another topic, another poster referred to me as “Creepy” and that “I need to work on myself”, all because they disagree with my point of view. They didn’t argue about my point, they argued about me as a person. It’s fine to disagree with my point of view, that’s what discussion is all about. But personal affronts against each other are not just regulated to men perceived to be fighting for male rights.

        Thaddeus, I’ve seen you post around here and while I don’t agree with everything you say, some I do, I do think you’re a calm, rational, intelligent poster. Slander and ignorance happens on both sides.

        • I agree, Erin, that slander and ignorance happen on both sides. However, I’ve never heard of someone getting banned from a run-of-the-mill site like Pharyngula because they were a “feminist”. I got monkey-piled upon, insulted, virtually abused and set up and then banned, simply because I was supposedly an MRA. From what many men are saying, this is typical all over the net.

          It was a wild experience. I’d never been subject to such a virtual monkey-pile in my life. The level of (purely symbolic) violence was astonishing, as well as what I’d qualify as gross abuse of power (though admittedly for a very trivial thing – access to commenting space). And all this on a blog that has nothing to do with sex and gender issues, mind you.

          Now I agree that MRAs can be a pain, but I do not see people who espouse a feminist attitude being virtually lynched on normal blogs. Do you? And yet even when TGMPM decides to do a piece on MRAs – something which one would assume is well within their providence as a men’s magazine – they have to preface the edition with paragraphs of material basically appologizing for their editorial decision.

          Ms. Magazine doesn’t do that when it decides to cover, say, radical lesbian separatists.

          So no, with all due respect to your experiences, I don’t think that the field of debate has been anything like level with regards to feminists and MRAs, at least within that amorphous beast known as the “progressive blogosphere”. I think that the MRAs have a solid point here. And I think that the rabid over-reaction to anything that smacks of the MRM on many left-leaning and progressive sites ends up giving the MRM much more credit than many of its arguments would otherwise garnish it.

    • I can empathize….try being a woman who is also an MRA. Hell, just try saying you’re NOT a feminist.

      Other women tell me I’m a ‘traitor’, or that I must hate myself and/or my gender, or that I just want a certain kind of attention from MRA men…..or the best of all (and this is a direct quote): “You are a feminist, sweetheart, even if you don’t know it yet”. Or more telling: “You are a feminist, even if you’re too stupid to realize it”. This from a group of women who claim to want to ‘empower’ me and make my life better, and help me realize my true worth/potential as a woman. Give me a break.

      I’ve had screaming arguments with women who insist that I’m a feminist…apparently I’m not even allowed to identify what I am for myself, because the feminists know what’s best for me, lmao.

      • Sorry about your less than stellar experience with feminists. I’m not a woman and I’ve had a few similar moments. For some reason its like they have convinced themselves that they are synonymous with all things ethical and moral. But I guess that’s what happens when you resort to guerrilla tactics instead of actual arguments. Its like they just can’t handle the fact that its possible to be for equality while at the same time not being a feminist.

        …apparently I’m not even allowed to identify what I am for myself, because the feminists know what’s best for me, lmao.
        All the more sad considering that one of their biggest points is that they are tired of being identified and prioritized by other people. So in the end I guess its wrong for “the patriarchy” to identify and speak for you but its okay for feminism to do so….

      • What’s astonishing is that fathersandfamilies I have read (and believe) are nearly 50% women.
        Second wives, daughters, sisters see how anti-father (and by extension anti-child) laws harm the men in their lives and the children whom they are no longer allowed to parent.

        There is study after study which proves having fathers in children’s lives lead to better outcomes and a more well-adjusted balance.

      • Natasha – I suspect most feminists don’t think they know “what’s best for you.” Most likely they probably don’t care to deal with you, because you don’t seem to care about yourself. No one likes to have to take care of another adult.

        • hahah ok…so to my above post, please add to the list of insane things feminists say to me, that I “…don’t seem to care about [my]self”

          Thanks for illustrating my point so well, Reader.

          • You’re welcome. The MRAs love women who deny their existence as separate people so they’ll love what you say. You can probably get laid by them in a second.

            Then when the baby is born, you may end up in divorce court or suing them in for palimony or fighting for rights to protect your children from abuse/neglect which they deny men are capable of doing! And you will have helped them get into their overempowered, authoritarian, irresponsible position in the court system!

            Good luck with that.

            I wonder if you understand you’re an adult, even if you lack separate identity as a woman or the ability to hold men accountable – and that you take responsibility for your choices and behavior nonetheless. If you don’t get at least this point, then your chances of being sued by the MRAs for abuse/neglect – and maybe even people like me – are very, very high.

            • ou’re welcome. The MRAs love women who deny their existence as separate people so they’ll love what you say. You can probably get la id by them in a second.
              =============
              Wow, this just goes to show you: When women don’t fall in line with the feminist party line feminists can be some of the largest misogynists ever.

              What happened to a woman’s sexuality is her business?
              As original as you may have thought your comment was Reader, I have seen this MANY times. Feminists see all men-loving women as traitors to the cause.

              How sad. The hypocrisies just keep piling up.
              Thanks reader–you probably just grew MRA ranks by about 2 dozen people just commenting here.

            • Reader

              “You’re welcome. The MRAs love women who deny their existence as separate people so they’ll love what you say. You can probably get laid by them in a second.”

              Can you stop making things up?

    • You also get accused of being a feminist if you disagree with the MRA side. I identify as being a humanist, and if people want to slap me with the feminist label, so be it. I can’t argue I’m not one, just as I can’t argue I am one. To argue that I’m not a feminist, or to argue that I am a feminist, is just pointless and stupid.

  9. If feminism is here to help men, then why did NOW have a closed door session with Obama to re-direct the stimulus? NOW stated that the stimulus shouldn’t be given to “sweaty men” and 41% of the stimulus (for “shovel ready jobs”) was instead given to female dominated fields in education and medicine which HADN’T been hit with the huge wave of layoffs that construction and manufacturing had? In other words, in the worst recession for men since the great depression feminists demanded (and got!) much more money to make the already comparatively better job prespects for women even a larger disparity against mens.
    If feminism is here to help men, then why is it that disparity = discrimination except when feminists say so? Feminists point to wage disparities and shortage of women in STEM fields, and women in tenured positions, CEO’s, judges as DE FACTO discrimination.
    But, when concerned people point to the fact that only 35% of college graduates are men, suddenly it’s not indicative of anything it’s just people making private decisions with their lives.
    If feminism is here to help men, then why do men like Marv Alberts, Kobe Bryant, and the duke 3 keep getting caught up in the rape bruehaha that feminists (and their today prosecutors) use as a way to shame male sexuality? Surely these women must be aware that those most hurt by prosecutorial misconduct are poor black males?
    If feminism is here to help men, then why do they keep (seemingly deliberately) conflating dysfunctionality with masculinity? Why do feminists keep pointing to men who commit acts of violence as evidence of the need for better men? These aren’t average samples of men. I could just as easily point to the 1million volunteer fire-fighters across the USA who are 99% men (strangely women don’t want to join unpaid firefighter teams) and say men don’t need to change. Or, I could point to the fact that mothers commit 70% of all parental child abuse (even when you include sexual) and we need a better breed of women.

    If feminism is here to help men, then why do they constantly attack male sports and scholarships with title ix? If a university cannot find enough interested women to field a golf team, or volleyball team then they must kill male positions/scholarships or the women can sue, even though the only issue going on is that men & women have different levels of interest in sports. This has lead to 12,000 athletic scholarships for men being eliminated—coincidentally most are poor black and Hispanics.
    The ultimate tell-tale sign that feminists are scared and are ACTIVELY trying to control the conversation about MRA issues is this web page, but also that they constantly try to delude people into thinking that any critique of feminism is an attack upon women, or misogynistic behavior.
    The simple fact is that feminism by the facts of its activists deeds and the majority of feminists (of whatever break-off denomination) who say nothing (about feminist activists war on fathers) has morphed into nothing but a blatantly evil, lying movement for female supremacy. Feminists advocate for what benefits women (even when it is UNequal or Unjust) just as big tobacco advocates for itself, just as big pharma advocates for what benefits itself, and just as big oil advocates for what benefits itself.
    The ultimate irony is that the #1 victim in this gender war on fathers is the children who grow up without 1 parent.

    • This comment was to be the third of three comments in a long ramble, but the other two are awaiting moderation. So it may not make sense until the others are posted.

    • “MRA” members do it too, John. I think it’s that site called “The Manhood Academy” but these are self-purported MRA members who sincerely believe that women need to be lorded over by men because we are children who cannot make decisions for ourselves. Visit that website, and you’ll see what I’m talking about. The extremists always get the most attention, and you are only ever going to hear the side of the extremists. They are the ones that speak up the most and speak up the loudest, so don’t lump feminists and assume that all of them are doing what you listed. Just like I’m trying not to lump all MRA members with “The Manhood Academy,” because I know there are some good MRA members out there; I have just yet to meet them because they aren’t being sensationalized on the internet and the media. They are the ones going out and making a difference without bashing feminism. You would be wise to do the same. I can mention plenty of feminists at my university who are in favor of men’s rights. You just won’t hear about them because they are getting things done and not sitting on the computer complaining, or on some television station complaining. They’re too busy getting things done to get noticed.

      • Amber,
        Fair enough. I accept your argument about the manhood academy.
        However, if you think there is an equivalence between a single web-page calling on men to behave in a certain way and a major feminist organization diverting 41% of the $800 stimulus to female-dominated fields (even though those fields were almost untouched by the recession) from male-dominated industries which shed millions of jobs then you’re not being very objective.

        Both groups are only being concerned about their constituents not EQUALITY, but NOW is the only group who seems to have ill-earned credibility as an “equal rights” group that can fashion legislative and legal changes, the manhood academy isn’t anywhere in that range.

        It’s time for people concerned with TRUE EQUALITY AND JUSTICE to stop think and nut have a gut reaction every time the word WOMAN is used in new legislation, or before a political groups name.

        Not to mention the $1 billion dollar VAWA that refuses grants to help men of abuse (unconstitutionally), not to mention the billions spent in helping girls in college or enter STEM fields, but none for men to enter teaching or nursing (I thought feminists were fighting to break gender roles FOR ALL???). Not to mention the pro-mommy divorce courts in which mothers are awarded sole custody 80% of the time.

        80% of the men in prison for violence hail from fatherless homes. 95% of the men on death-row hail from fatherless homes.

        My point is that NO LONGER should we allow these hateful groups (like NOW and AAUW) to self-identify what they stand for. They should be judged by their actions (just as you have judged manhood academy & found them wanting).

        These hateful supremacist groups should not have the ear of government as they do, as they don’t foster justice or equality, and they certainly don’t advocate what is best for kids.

        Study after study shows that what is best for kids is to have loving fit dads engaged with them. Yet in our pro-mommy divorce courts 1/3 of children of divorce lose permanent contact with their dads within 3 years the overwhelming majority of it due to visitation interference.

        Cops and courts routinely do NOTHING when mothers disregard court-ordered visitation.

        • Fathers and families fight for SHARED PARENTING.
          NOW fights for SOLE PARENTING.

          Which one seems to be fostering equality?

          • If Fathers and Families fought for shared parenting, they’d have the word “mother” in the name and they’d work with functional shared parenting promoters and blogs like Marc Vachon, John Badalment, etc.

            • ***IF*** Fathers and Families fought for shared parenting?

              Clearly you have never been to the F&F web-page, nor to glennsacks.com

              How can you simultaneously feel comfortable arguing about a movement you know nothing about and superior enough to start doling out homework to everybody?
              Wow, just wow.
              If you perused their web-pages, you would know how remarkably stupid you sound.

        • Should have been $800 BILLION stimulus. hehe
          Not sure what could be done for $800 except a really nice flat screen.

        • I’ve been in a firm that got VAWA for a man.

          Where is your research?

          The VAWA statute does not limit the gender of the abused spouse to women.

          • No. It has never had gendered language.

            You would know that if you dealt in facts.

            • ‘I’m posting this to Gayle, but my posts keep going to the middle of the thread instead of where I want them too!

              Mens rights groups succeeded in getting the language of VAWA changed so that it was gender neutral in 2005

              Here is the gov. document relating to the changes (take out the x)

              htXtp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp109&sid=cp109WvwUu&refer=&r_n=hr233.109&item=&sel=TOC_137274&

              “In this part, and in any other Act of Congress, unless the context unequivocally requires otherwise, a provision authorizing or requiring the Department of Justice to make grants, or to carry out other activities, for assistance to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, sexual assault, or trafficking in persons, shall be construed to cover grants that provide assistance to female victims, male victims, or both”

              And here some discussion about it on a feminist blog.

              htXtp://www.amptoons.com/blog/2005/12/19/violence-against-women-act-passes/

            • Is this a refernece to VAWA? Don’t you think the name itself is about as gendered as it can be?

          • Gayle,
            What you may say be true, but that DV shelter may already not be receiving VAWA funds.
            Marc Angelucci of fathersandfamilies.org lead a lawsuit in California with 3 plaintiffs who were abused men who were turned away from DV centers w/VAWA funding.

            VAWA specifically states that funds from VAWA cannot be used for grants for any dv shelter that helps men.
            Marc Angelucci was succesful in his lawsuit and the judge stated that the grant process was unconstitutional, allowing DV shelters which accommodate male clients to apply for grants.

            I’m assuming you’re in california, and if not maybe the misandric nature of VAWA has been struck down in your state using the lawsuit in california as a precedent.

            The point is, it had to be a father’s rights group that lead the way. Feminists always seem to declare sympathy for all, except when it comes to actual actions.

      • Good point. Manhood academy is part of the pickup community, not MRA’s. They openly mock men like Sacks.

        • Thanks for the compliment. But in the future I would steer clear of personal attacks on a person.

          In my experience a lot of feminists aren’t liars but actually people of good intentions who get swept up in the victimhood methodology.
          They have been mislead from incredibly clever, smart, manipulative people at the top.
          It’s entirely possible Amber really believes what she says.
          She may really believe that feminists fight for men too.

          The best way to fight the man-haters, and wake up the innocent mislead is to keep hammering with feminisms total hypocrisies over and over.
          Another is to hang them by their own comments–which is why I asked Amber to shine a light on how her feminist friends are helping men’s rights.

          More than likely she will come back w/some tired old feminist line about helping trans men attend women’s colleges or some such. Something that would help 1 in 50,000 men and has nothing to do with the issues at hand.

          And also doesn’t address why the two most powerful feminist lobbies actively pursue very large legislative campaigns against men’s equal rights I mentioned (like NOW diverting 41% of the $800 billion stimulus from construction & manufacturing to medical & education, and the $1billion dollar unconstitutional VAWA?) if they fight for men too?

          They clearly don’t fight for men. NOW issues action alerts in every state where shared parenting laws may be enacted.

          How can these organizations be (NOW and AAUW) be a “fringe” group when they have the most clout, exercise the most leverage on legislative bodies and have the most dues-paying members of any women’s groups?
          The silence of so-called calmer man-loving feminists IS DEFEANING

        • It seems pretty clear to me that feminists fear no longer being the go-to authority on equality. The fact that men may start to make legislative changes for fathers rights and men’s rights scare them.

          In the same way that “Men’s studies” were a preemptive strike against men fighting for equality (men’s studies on college campuses are nothing but an appendix to women’s study that teaches from the view that we live in a patriarchy and that is bad. In other words it teaches men how to be even bigger tools in aiding their rapidly declining rights) so too have a I seen a lot of very liberal feminist web-sights trying to steer interest to their web-pages and away from true men’s rights areas.

          Then they setup ridiculous straw-man arguments as “MRA issues” and knock them down & like a traffic cop say “Nothing to see here, keep moving”. The prime example of this is Amanda Marcotte’s insulting article a while back.

          If you have the time peruse this:
          http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/04/09/sexist-beatdown-manly-masculine-male-edition/

          This is an article (supposedly) debunking the newly emerged Male Studies that experts concerned about boys & men are trying to open up to colleges. It talks about very important male issues (like homelessness, suicide, crime victims, incarceration which are all 80-90% male problems) APART from the feminism/patriarchy model.

          Feminists are furious that they are losing control of the conversation on equality, and that they may have to share the victim stage for VERY IMPORTANT men’s issues that have gone unaderessed for a very long time in our society.

          Don’t bother perusing the article, but rather look at the comments. Starting at 118 or so they heat up quick. It’s a very good eye-opener into the mind-set of most feminists.

          • It seems pretty clear to me that feminists fear no longer being the go-to authority on equality.

            I would agree with this statement. Then again, I never thought that feminists were the go-to authority on equality in the first place.

            • Neither did I, however that is precisely how much of mainstream media has treated them.

              Every time I have seen coverage of the boy crisis in print of TV, a feminist viewpoint is always invited.
              In clash after clash many businesses stand down and agree to whatever demands that feminists make of them.

              Look at what happened with Obama redirecting nearly half of the $800 billion stimulus bill (from male-dominated industries which CLEARLY needed help to female-dominated industries which were largely untouched by the recession) just because NOW said so.

              This is rapidly changing. Men’s rights issues are even beginning to bleed through to the mainstream because it is something new & refreshing to discuss.
              On private practice (which I sometimes catch glimpses of because my wife watches it) they had a NCP dad who took his son out of his CP mom’s house because the step-dad was beating him (w/mom at least not intervening I assume or in denial). With the son backing all this up (i.e. the father had the son’s permission).
              In that episode the father & doctor discussed the near zero chance that an unemployed father had to get custody. So, the father & son were outlaws traveling under fake names.

              Tyra Banks did a show on abusive women. There is beginning to be some bleed through of men’s issues as men make a big enough stink.

              I really think what feminists are afraid of is that the men’s rights movement is really on the verge of an explosive growth as the points about male disposability & disenfranchisement is about to cut across many political barriers and may find a very receptive ear in leftist men (who feminists for decades have been instructing society should care about all victims of oppression).
              If the men’s rights movement catches on with rank-and-file liberal feminist men (like Glenn Sacks), then feminists will soon be called to task on why they very actively oppose equal father custody, and very actively oppose equal help for abused men.

              It’s a scary thing to go from political front row, to being the #1 scape-goat of holding back true equality.

            • That’s not going to happen, John, if MRA’s facts are as poorly researched and presented as they often are here.

            • Unfortunately, I still have like 6 comments awaiting moderation.
              Two of them are fairly long posts that go into a detailed history showing how again & again feminists have stood against justified fathers rights.

              The simple fact is when you judge the 3 or 4 leading feminist organizations on their actions (instead of letting them self-identify themselves as equal rights) they are shown to be nothing but an advocacy group for ever expanding rights (even when these rights are unjust, unequal, and harm children).

            • Why not? That approach ahs certainly worked well enough for feminsts over the last 40 years. Susan Brownmiller has had a huge influence, as one example.

            • You cant base the mrm on one piece of shitty sourcing that was done in the comment section of of a feminist publication.

              Go to Breaking the Science, RADAR or loot at any information on wage gap that isn’t feminist in its source and you will find that mra positions are backed up, also John as done a decent amount of sourcing and provided links.

            • Thaddeus

              You shouldn’t judge on the basis of one shitty piece of sourcing, if you want to see the sources that mra’s use find a site called breaking the science and every piece of independent research on wage gap backs up the mra position baring the feminist propaganda, which isn’t based on research.

              Also, fathers rights aren’t wage gap, father rights is something else, this article rather cynically tries to make fathers rights a feminist issue – wage gap. So lets not all get duped.

              There is an actual thread about wage gap in a different section of this site.

            • On gender equality and gender issues in general? Really? Note the comment below on the crisis of boys aneucation. Why would it even occur to anyone to include a feminst comment on the matter if this were not that case?

            • Jim,
              I’m not sure I understand the question. Why does mainstream media treat NOW like they actually stand for equal rights when they CLEARLY don’t?

              F*ck dude, I don’t know. Why do people act like Dubyah is a patriot, when he illegal spied on American citizens and started a war under false pretenses (and ran out of the armed forces when it was his time to serve)?
              People are stupid, people need something to believe in? Who knows?

      • Amber, good call on that shithole of a site. It shows how the MRM has the same radfem/sanefem split as feminism has.

        • Jim

          That site isn’t an mra site, its a very quiet site too, the comments section is dead.

          Also, insane mra’s as the minority, feminism is rife with insanity the gender and radical feminists are in charge of the movement.

    • It looks like my other two posts (leading into this long one which was 3 of 3) were eaten.
      Why I don’t know. There was no profanity or even anything incendiary.

      Maybe it was just because my posts made too much sense.

  10. Amber says:
    April 9, 2011 at 10:44 am
    0 0

    I can mention plenty of feminists at my university who are in favor of men’s rights. You just won’t hear about them because they are getting things done
    ——–
    Such as?

  11. It seems to me… MRAs are mostly only concerned with fatherhood *after* a divorce. They don’t put much effort or concentration into pre-divorce fatherhood.

    I’ve gone over sites like The Spearhead and A Voice for Men and couldn’t see a single article that was teaching more hands-on father skills (that would aid in a legal argument that the father did in fact know how to change diapers and had done 50% of the child rearing)…

    I didn’t see them bemoan the statistics that many father’s don’t know the names of the kids doctors or dentists… they don’t give men the tools to be the active, equal sharing parent they so seem to think they deserve after a divorce.

    No, what did I see? “Feminism this… ” “Feminism that…” “Marry women from Asia…” “Don’t hold doors open…” “MGTOW”

    If men are doing more domestic work, as they say… why are all the advertisements for cleaners/baby wipes/diapers/laundry detergent aimed to women? Companies do intense market research. If there was a legion of men who did their fair share in the household… it would be reflected in advertising directed at them. No. It remains that most men do not in fact do their fair share of household and child rearing work before or after a divorce. Sure, they are doing more than in, say, 1910… but it has not even come close to parity.

    That is the reality.

    Furthermore, it’s hard to take seriously a movement that says X is an issue but we should direct all of our energy at Y. None of the articles seem to actually advance what they want. I just read complaint and no solutions and violent, often heavily misogynistic rhetoric in the comments.

    Also, it strikes me that MGTOW if in fact they are not having sex with women, aren’t fathers at all? Paint me confused. Do they honestly think boycotting women is going to work? Especially when many of them complained of women ignoring them for being “Nice Guys” anyway? I don’t see the logic. How you boycott women when women did not want you to begin with?

    John D and Hook, you’re not winning any converts with your oft repeated slogans and buzzwords. Real arguments are needed to convince people.

    • “I didn’t see them bemoan the statistics that many father’s don’t know the names of the kids doctors or dentists… ”

      So they aren’t moaning about mommy-blocking? They’ll get to it eventually.

    • Henry

      Why on earth would men who have had their children taken, turned into proxy weapons and cash cows be worrying about hands on parenting skills and surely they learnt them when they were parents and thats why they want to be able to have their children in their lives,?

      Besides, none of the websites you mentioned are fathers rights oriented.

    • Per Henry:
      MRAs are mostly only concerned with fatherhood *after* a divorce. They don’t put much effort or concentration into pre-divorce fatherhood.
      nd couldn’t see a single article that was teaching more hands-on father skills (that would aid in a legal argument that the father did in fact know how to change diapers and had done 50% of the child rearing)
      ——
      As Mark mentioned you weren’t perusing any father’s rights web-pages. If you’re really interested in why you should jump to conclusions and hate father’s rights web-pages, at least go to the correct places.

      Some general thoughts on your comments:
      A) This may seem like a wild tangent but stick w/me for a second. Two positions of a great deal of feminists that I find to be mutually exclusive are: 1) there are no (or few) innate gender differences and where there is disparity it must be discrimination or socialization and 2) the belief that housewives are the victims in the relationship (because of their submitting to somebody else providing & lack of economic power yada yada).
      These two views (to my mind) are mutually exclusive for this reason: The only reason a person could possibly determine that the wife was the victim is if you embrace innate gender differences. Why? Because if you accept that there are no gender differences this would lead to the conclusion that fathers are incredibly miserable about their time away from their children (missing their first words, first steps, first day of school, first bike ride).

      It is only through the denial of fathers humanity that people can say that housewives are the victim, if fathers (innately) felt anything *remotely* like mothers than we would have to face the fact that fathers en masse are making such a remarkably huge sacrifice for their families as to be nearly unbearable. Probably the only way a person could do that would be to (oh I don’t know) maybe bury their emotions and lose touch with their feelings? Naaaahh, we can’t AFFORD to start thinking like that! 80% of full-time employed fathers stated they would like to take time off to be with their families if they could be sure it wouldn’t risk their employment or hurt the family finances.

      B) A father working a 60 hour week is a GIFT he gives to the family willingly to better their standard of living–at great personal sacrifice. It is an act of love. Even a father working a heavy week is still involved in his childrens lives daily–even if it’s only 30 to 90 minutes per day. Also, there seems to be a lot of evidence that the provider/carer model is exactly the way women want it: ht tp://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/business/global/29iht-riedgenper.html?_r=2

      After a divorce, when his financial gift is transformed into something forcibly removed, daily contact with children is removed, and the pleasure of seeing his kids with the things his money has bought removed (since instead of being involved daily he is now only involved 2 of 14 days AT BEST if mom doesn’t interfere w/visitation) and quite possibly no longer even getting credit for the things his sacrifice buys his child (“look what mom bought me dad!”), a father might start to ask himself why he should run on that hamster wheel anymore and start starving for a need to be closer to his children in a much more real way.

      C) I’m assuming that fathers spending more direct caring time for the children is seen as a good thing by most on this board. If that’s the case, let me turn your point around HENRY and ask you HOW could there be a *bad* time to do that? Why are the dads motives even questioned? It seems like feminists having (in their own minds) robbed fathers of their humanity, can only come to the conclusion that any reason a divorced dad might want more time w/his kids is for something nefarious. They never stop to think that since divorce CHANGES things and he isn’t in their lives daily MAYBE he MISSES THEM?

      If a woman starts a marriage in the primary care-giver mode and she wants to get a job, train for a career, go back to school, or start a business–NOBODY WOULD *DARE* DREAM of telling her “OH NO! YOU CAN’T! You’re LOCKED IN–**EFFING LOCKED IN BABY!!!!!!!***, you’re in the primary care role FOREVER!”
      But when a dad wants more time with his child, that is exactly how most feminists react: When a dad wants more parenting time feminists like Reader and yourself (the UNIMPEACHABLE STALWART GUARDIANS OF EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN AAAAAND **MEN** who are supposedly *FOR* shattering gender roles) say: “YOU CAN’T! YOU CAN’T!!! YOU’RE LOCKED IN BUDDY, LOCKED IN! NEVER, NEVER-EVER!!!”
      What a big steaming pile of hypocritical bull sh*t.

      And this is based upon some kind of ridiculous rule of maintaining a continuum (that we would *NEVER* apply to women)? Divorce by it’s very nature IS change. There are no safety nets.

      This is simple concepts of justice and equal rights people. Your artificial fabrications to father’s equal custody time are such mindless drivel that makes me want to puke.

      And the funny thing is that you guys come off as the enlightened intellectuals saying I don’t measure up to the test of proving sh*t to you. You guys are the *good* guys? Maybe I didn’t prove anything to you. But, you know what? Your rampant misandry may have proved some things to some observers.

  12. Did Hook get banned?
    In any event Thaddeus. In the thread about the wage gap, I posted my comment that was in moderation limbo into word.

    Here is my response to your comment that even in metropolitan cities where single childless women making more declines to a negative (compared to men) as they age:

    These all verify that their is no wage gap discernible from discrimination. It all boils down to women’s choices.
    The last is a link to an abc story about a wife who was in a 2income household who suddenly was thrust into a provider role due to hubbys elimination.
    The story tells how she is filled with resentment and loss of respect for him. Which I find interesting, I thought staying home w/the children made women VICTIMS?

    Thaddeus:
    Of course wages are going to be different as the genders age. However, if women persist in making the same choices as men through life they typically get paid higher. Most do not.

    Women make different life choices than men. Quite frankly, I think women are pretty clever to make somebody chump up and do the lions share of work while they get to bond w/the children, see the baby’s first steps, first words, first day at school. But, what boggles all reality is that feminists then come along and say that these women are somehow victims.

    How are they victims considering that marriage in all states is a communal property arrangement? The women work less and still are entitiled to an equal share, while the men die 7 years earlier and the women get to collect his pension?
    How are these women victims?

    Speaking of which here is a study that shows when adjusted for women’s family-oriented decisions the wage gap disappears:
    ht tp://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.p df

    Here are some pages on which you can educate yourself on the wage gap:
    ht tp://www.glennsacks.com/male_female_wage.h tm

    ht tp://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=621

    More studies (or articles detailing the names & results of studies):
    ht tp://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/6622521/Harriet-Harmans-costly-Equality-Bill-wont-do-anything-for-women.h tml

    Article explaining study that when paid & unpaid work are compared men&women are about equal:
    ht tp://www.reuters.com/article/2010/08/05/us-work-couples-productivity-idUSTRE6744A620100805

    (although equal hours doesn’t mean equal work. Is spending 8 hours climbing up & down telephone poles in the rain equal to folding laundry in front of the tv?)

    Good news, workplace fatalities down. No news 93% are men.
    h ttp://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0008.p df

    This article shows women earning less in STEM fields due to life choices:
    ht tp://www.american.com/archive/2009/june/baseless-bias-and-the-new-second-sex

    Study: Women take more career interruptions & work fewer hours:
    article:
    ht tp://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/business/global/29iht-riedgenper.html?_r=2

    Here is an ABC article titled “when mom becomes the breadwinner” from 3/16/09
    ht tp://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=7088747&page=1
    Quoted from the woman (who was thrust into the breadwinner role by hubby’s layoff):
    “I’ve just lost so much respect for him”

    Are we stillllllll sure all those women earning less are the VICTIMS?

  13. Following is my 3part rambling monologue which details in explicit detail exactly the information (that I have to hand anyway, I’m sure there is much more) proving feminist activist organizations combat of fathers and men’s rights.

    Following are some of my wandering thoughts on why most of the fault of bad blood (between the two mentioned groups) lies with feminists. This is simply because the largest and most influential feminist organizations and the most active feminist members (i.e. those feminists most engaged and with clout to exert political will do so with the intent to) attack men’s equal rights.
    One of the arguments in this article and MANY articles defending feminists is that feminism is a big ole umbrella, and MRA’s shouldn’t be attacking an entire movement based on the actions of a few radicals on the fringe.
    The problem is that the feminists who are engaging in active hard-core fanatical to-the-death combat against men’s equal rights are not the radical fringe of the feminist movement, but rather it’s radical CORE.
    Andrea Dworkin admitted she was raped by male family members. And yet this person was seen as a STALWART UNIMPEACHABLE GUARDIAN OF EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN AND ***MEN***???
    Where was the out-cry when Germaine Greer said she liked looking at nude pictures of boys (roughly paraphrased)”Not shaved young men mind you but nude young boys”!
    Besides, if the statement were correct that it is the radical fringe, then where is the outcries of the main-stream men-loving feminists when the feminist leaders frequently attack and disparage men, and men’s rights? How can a movement be about equality when it’s MOST ACTIVE members fight to keep an entire gender down?
    Some general evidence of feminism’s active assaults upon men’s and father’s rights:
    The founding mothers statements:
    ht tp://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/cpf/newreadings/2001/feminist_hate_speech.h tm
    A quick perusal of some of the statements of the founding mothers will quickly open ones eyes. If you put the word black in front of male or man in these speeches and they would make a grand wizard at a kkk rally blush.
    In the LaMusga vs LaMusga court case Gary LaMusga was fighting to keep his divorced wife from moving 1000’s of miles away with his kids. The trial court upheld the father’s wishes, the first district reversed, then the Cali supreme court upheld the original ruling. The previous precedent used in Cali law was the Burgess decision which basically stated that as long as the children’s environment was improving AND the move wasn’t done by the mother (ahem I meant custodial parent) in bad faith (as a punitive thing against the father—ahem NCP) then the move could go forward.
    During the supreme court case dozens of feminist-indoctrinated DV centers from all over the country wrote or signed onto an amicus brief to the supreme court urging the judges to not overturn the Burgess decision. These DV centers should not be using tax dollars to turn around and lobby government for their anti-father, anti-child agenda.
    ht tp://www.glennsacks.com/enewsletters/enews_10_9_07.h tm
    10th paragraph or so.
    In deciding LaMusga the supreme court stated that a likely deleterious impact (due to the move) on the child & NCP bond should be a strongly determining factor IN AND OF ITSELF, even so much as to change custody if necessary.
    THIS DECISION would seem to be a win for everybody concerned about REAL justice and REAL parental rights for BOTH PARENTS having custody or not and REAL rights for the child to maintain a relationship with both parents.
    What was feminist reaction to this news?
    They tried to overturn a win for JUSTICE for EQUAL rights and rights of the child to have both parents in their life post-divorce by pushing for the bill SB730 to be passed allowing custodial parents to move anywhere in the country or out of the country (over-riding LaMusga’s decision that family courts must weigh likely destruction of the father-child bond, oops I meant NCP-child bond).
    Luckily this heinous bill was defeated by Sacks.
    Here are some instances of NOW and other organizations actively fighting against shared parenting (despite the overwhelming evidence which shows that post-divorce kids who have substantial time with both parents fare better in life):
    ht tp://www.glennsacks.com/nysp/index.h tm
    ht tp://www.glennsacks.com/north_dakota_shared.h tm
    ht tp://www.glennsacks.com/enewsletters/enews_11_28_06.h tm
    ht tp://www.michnow.org/files/jointmandatorycustody.pdf
    Feminists state that fathers pushing for SHARED CUSTODY is about control, but mothers pushing for SOLE CUSTODY is *never* about control.

    • Another issue in regards to fathers is forced acquiescence. Feminists were all over the concept of forced acceptance when the discussion was women dropping allegations of rape due to fear or shame.
      But, when it comes to father’s shared custody feminists put their fingers behind their back and cross them when they say that:”95% of fathers agree to the custody arrangement.”
      Feminists know full well, that any father contemplating fighting for shared custody likely has been told by his attorney that he may pay many dozen’s of thousands of dollars only to achieve less custody/visitation than the standard alternating weekends. The “acceptance” of this custody arrangement isn’t at all indicative of what he wanted, but it is a barometer of how futile it is to fight for custody as a man. Mothers get sole custody 80% of the time and shared 14%. Fathers get shared 14% and sole 6%.
      Next issue:
      More father-hating feminists released a “journalistic report” on how abusive fathers were using false accusations of PAS to win custody of their kids. (PAS stands for parental alienation syndrome in which one parent, usually the custodial parent, engages in a campaign of trying to turn the children against the other parent often by coaching children to lie and say the other parent molested the children).
      This report was published for PBS to air on all of their affiliates.
      This “report” was Breaking The Silence. The poster-mother that they held up as a victim of an abusive father winning custody of his kids w/false accusations of PAS against the mother was Genia Shockome.
      Only problem? The PBS ombudsman said that the report contained outright distortions and did not adhere to journalistic standards of integrity.
      The program was removed from PBS. It turns out that Genia Shockome lost custody due to her fanatical campaign against the dad. It wasn’t just 1 disgruntled judge but dozens of therapists, guardian ad litmus for the children, custody evaluators (many of them feminists) who said the father should get custody.
      Genia was caught on tape in a visitation center coaching her kids to make false statements of abuse.

      Then there is VAWA which actively states (unconstitutionally) that no grants may be awarded from vawa funds to any DV center that admits men.
      Marc Angelucci won a case in California which overturned the way grants are awarded in California. This case centered around David Woods who could not find a safe haven for himself and his daughter due to the misandry of various DV centers. David’s daughter Megan is only alive because when her mother tried to shoot her with a shotgun it wasn’t loaded. What feminists don’t realize is that by committing a gender war, you also hurt women.
      ht tp://www.glennsacks.com/blog/?page_id=1784
      In this story is detailed how sheriffs were going to arrest David for punching his wife, but when finding out that he did it to save his life when his wife tried to stab him, the cops refuse to arrest her stating that David should make an appointment for her with a mental doctor. W. T. F?
      ht tp://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4037

      If feminism is truly the movement that is the UNIMPEACHABLE GUARDIAN OF EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN, AAAAND ***MEN*** then how come grants from Vawa are reserved for only shelters that house all women (even 1 male client kills the grant).
      If feminism is here to help men, then why do no feminist organizations ever attend “From Ideology to Inclusion”
      ht tp://www.conferencealerts.com/seeconf.mv?q=ca1m0033
      If feminism is here to help men why did the leading feminist organization reaction to the boy crisis break-down as follows?
      Denial, ok minority boys have an issue, we’re not going to discuss the boy crisis because there is still a wage gap, ok boys have an issue—but it’s their fault, we have the solution we need to remake boys like girls.

    • If feminism is here to help men, then why did not one major feminist organization join as a signatory in the 1999 STOP RAPE NOW bill?
      If feminism is here to help men, then why did NOW have a closed door session with Obama to re-direct the stimulus? NOW stated that the stimulus shouldn’t be given to “sweaty men” and 41% of the stimulus (for “shovel ready jobs”) was instead given to female dominated fields in education and medicine which HADN’T been hit with the huge wave of layoffs that construction and manufacturing had? In other words, in the worst recession for men since the great depression feminists demanded (and got!) much more money to make the already comparatively better job prespects for women even a larger disparity against mens.
      If feminism is here to help men, then why is it that disparity = discrimination except when feminists say so? Feminists point to wage disparities and shortage of women in STEM fields, and women in tenured positions, CEO’s, judges as DE FACTO discrimination.
      But, when concerned people point to the fact that only 35% of college graduates are men, suddenly it’s not indicative of anything it’s just people making private decisions with their lives.
      If feminism is here to help men, then why do men like Marv Alberts, Kobe Bryant, and the duke 3 keep getting caught up in the rape bruehaha that feminists (and their today prosecutors) use as a way to shame male sexuality? Surely these women must be aware that those most hurt by prosecutorial misconduct are poor black males?
      If feminism is here to help men, then why do they keep (seemingly deliberately) conflating dysfunctionality with masculinity? Why do feminists keep pointing to men who commit acts of violence as evidence of the need for better men? These aren’t average samples of men. I could just as easily point to the 1million volunteer fire-fighters across the USA who are 99% men (strangely women don’t want to join unpaid firefighter teams) and say men don’t need to change. Or, I could point to the fact that mothers commit 70% of all parental child abuse (even when you include sexual) and we need a better breed of women.

      If feminism is here to help men, then why do they constantly attack male sports and scholarships with title ix? If a university cannot find enough interested women to field a golf team, or volleyball team then they must kill male positions/scholarships or the women can sue, even though the only issue going on is that men & women have different levels of interest in sports. This has lead to 12,000 athletic scholarships for men being eliminated—coincidentally most are poor black and Hispanics.
      The ultimate tell-tale sign that feminists are scared and are ACTIVELY trying to control the conversation about MRA issues is this web page, but also that they constantly try to delude people into thinking that any critique of feminism is an attack upon women, or misogynistic behavior.
      The simple fact is that feminism by the facts of its activists deeds and the majority of feminists (of whatever break-off denomination) who say nothing (about feminist activists war on fathers) has morphed into nothing but a blatantly evil, lying movement for female supremacy. Feminists advocate for what benefits women (even when it is UNequal or Unjust) just as big tobacco advocates for itself, just as big pharma advocates for what benefits itself, and just as big oil advocates for what benefits itself.
      The ultimate irony is that the #1 victim in this gender war on fathers is the children who grow up without 1 parent.

  14. Mens rights groups succeeded in getting the language of VAWA changed so that it was gender neutral in 2005

    Here is the gov. document relating to the changes (take out the x)

    htXtp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp109&sid=cp109WvwUu&refer=&r_n=hr233.109&item=&sel=TOC_137274&

    “In this part, and in any other Act of Congress, unless the context unequivocally requires otherwise, a provision authorizing or requiring the Department of Justice to make grants, or to carry out other activities, for assistance to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, sexual assault, or trafficking in persons, shall be construed to cover grants that provide assistance to female victims, male victims, or both”

    And here some discussion about it on a feminist blog.

    htXtp://www.amptoons.com/blog/2005/12/19/violence-against-women-act-passes/

  15. This conversation is missing the crux of the issue for fathers rights people.

    There are no custody problems when the situation is being set up between normal people, it becomes a problem when an abusive ex spouse/mother is using the system and the child as as a proxy weapon or abusing the child and the father is left powerless.

    Father rights groups are generally populated by the ex partners of abusive women that are obstruction reasonable contact.

  16. Double post, sorry I put the first one through in the wrong box.

    A missing component from this conversation is the fact that Fathers Rights groups are populated by men whose ex’s are using their children and the courts as proxy weapons.

    There are a whole range of issues, parental alienation, mother on child abuse, false allegations, obstruction… and so on that are being generated by abusive mothers and feminist jurisprudence leaves the father little or no recourse.

    Under normal circumstances, a non abusive woman won’t obstruct contact.

  17. Double post, sorry I put the first one through in the wrong box, I’m trying to add this on to the bottom of the thread but it keeps posting half way up it for some reason.

    A missing component from this conversation is the fact that Fathers Rights groups are populated by men whose ex’s are using their children and the courts as proxy weapons.

    There are a whole range of issues, parental alienation, mother on child abuse, false allegations, obstruction… and so on that are being generated by abusive mothers and feminist jurisprudence leaves the father little or no recourse.

    Under normal circumstances, a non abusive woman won’t obstruct contact.

  18. Ok, the other point that I wanted to make is that this conversation is missing the point that under normal circumstances, there are no mens rights issues when it comes to family law, the issues are generated by abusive ex’s and mothers who are using the fathers children and the courts as a way to inflict emotional abuse on the child’s father.

    The issues include, mother on child abuse, obstruction of contact, false allegations against the father which the court accepts without evidence, proven abuse by the mother that the court ignores, the mother just deciding that the child is going to have a new father… and so on. There is also the fact that loss of job can result in prison because the father cant pay child support through no fault of his own.

    Feminist jurisprudence, which informs family law leaves men in these sort of situations little to no recourse.

    NOW, a powerful lobby group, works to obstruct improvements.

    • Why won’t my posts go where they are supposed to, I’ve put the basically the same thing through four times now trying to get it to the bottom of the thread?!

  19. Fathers rights groups are there mainly because of narcissist and borderline personality disordered women that use their ex’s children and the courts as proxy weapons, feminist jurisprudence has created a situation where these abusive personalities can use children and the courts in a campaign of abuse with relative impunity and the men that are targeted for this abuse have little power to do stop it. NOW.org actively obstructs parental alienation from being recognised as a form of child abuse and lobbys against mens rights groups that seek improve the system that favours these abusers.

    “ww w.highconflictinstitute.c om), providers of education and resources to understand people who have High Conflict personalities, is partnering with EVDense Corporation (https://www.evdense.com), maker of EVDense Digital Diary. High Conflict Institute is pleased to recommend EVDense Digital Diary – Child Custody to parents involved in Child Custody disputes with a borderline or narcissistic spouse.

    In general, High Conflict People (HCPs) are most difficult because they become preoccupied with a target of blame, and in Child Custody cases, the target may quickly become the soon-to-be-ex spouse. High Conflict Institute teaches the targets of blame, and the professionals helping them, how to collect information to support an assertive approach to successfully manage HCPs in Child Custody cases”.

    Here is a psychologist’s perspective on narcissist and borderline personality disordered females and abuse via. family law.
    htt p://www.shrink4men.com/2011/02/25/second-wives-sound-off-part-1-what-makes-you-the-most-angry-about-divorce-law-and-family-court/

    • High conflict people are usually attracted to – and attract – high conflict people. A healthy person does not usually marry an unhealthy person. So these husbands are often just as unhealthy as the wives – if the wives are.

      I gather you are a woman since your name is Jayne?

      There has been a substantial “second wives’ club” effort to erode the rights of first wives – and I suspect you may have fallen into their thinking. This is especially likely to happen to women who grew up in male breadwinner homes where they were 100% reliant on the father for food/shelter, etc. The daddy-loyal woman seeks out a married or divorced man and then uses the first wife to stand in for her mother and re-enacts the drama of her family of origin – usually subconsciously. She feels on a subconscious level that she MUST defend, be loyal to and emulate the man or she will not survive. She throws her identity as a woman, and any other woman who crosses the man, under the bus.

      • Reader.

        “High conflict people are usually attracted to – and attract – high conflict people. A healthy person does not usually marry an unhealthy person. So these husbands are often just as unhealthy as the wives – if the wives are”.

        Citation? Also abusers look for victims, if a woman that has been victimied by a male with a PD responsible for it, or is just the case when a male is the victim? You don’t have to answer that.

        And you are very out of touch, a significant portion if relationships have a female breadwinner, and the shared duties is the norm in families as per the time use surveys.

        These abusive women that are harming men and children by using the children and courts as a weapon are what fathers rights are about, fathers rights arent about your vision of every family being forced to set it self up by your ideological standards. Female breadwinner, male breadwinner, egalitarian, humans are diverse, they can set their families up any way they want.

  20. Did Hook get banned and, if so, why?

    I mean, I disagreed with him, but I don’t think he did anything that required him to be censored, let alone stamped from the virtual ether….

  21. wellokaythen says:

    Reader says:
    “If you want equal parenting, set your marriage up that way with both parents earning, both parents parenting and both parents doing roughly half the unpaid work of the family.”

    Okay, I can see some wisdom here. It’s something of a fair statement about fathers establishing themselves as parents. If you want to get credit for being a father, then put in the work. I get that. That’s not entirely fair nor is it that simple, but I get the idea.

    However, if the argument is the father gets out what he put into it, then by the same token a father should not be allowed LESS time with his kids each week than he spent before. If you’re going to count the time he didn’t spend with his kids and are going to hold that against him, then you should also count the time he did spend with them and count that in his favor. If there is some kind of “parenting bank,” his account doesn’t go to zero just because he’s now divorced.

    What also seems unbalanced and arbitrary to me is that while a father and mother are married, the law presumes he is an acceptable father until proven otherwise, and the standard of proof is really high. Somehow, though, once the two divorce he is all of a sudden easily suspected of being an unacceptable father and the burden of proof is on him to prove he’s worthy. He’s an acceptable father as long as he’s a husband but as soon as he becomes an ex-husband he’s unacceptable as a father? That’s quite a miraculous transformation in his legal status.

    • “That’s not entirely fair”

      Why not?

      • In other words, what is not fair about the statement that “If you want to get credit for being a father, then put in the work.” ?

        If you want equal parenting, then set up your marriage that way with both parents earning and both parents parenting and both parents doing half the unpaid work.

        What is “not entirely fair” about this?

        Books about how to do this include “Equally Shared Parenting” by Marc Vachon.

        • READER

          “In other words, what is not fair about the statement that “If you want to get credit for being a father, then put in the work.” ?”

          The time use surveys show that shared outside work, parenting and house work is the norm. you are attacking a strawman with this argument, repeatedly.

          “If you want equal parenting, then set up your marriage that way with both parents earning and both parents parenting and both parents doing half the unpaid work.”

          Women are free to chose what ever set up they want.

          “What is “not entirely fair” about this?”

          Its not acceptable to want to dictate that couples aren’t free to set up their own system.

          “Books about how to do this include “Equally Shared Parenting” by Marc Vachon.”

          Again your blackmail, there will always be egalitarian homes, female breadwinner homes and male breadwinners homes, because of human diversity and free will. Your oppressive position, that everyone should be coerced into being the same and getting out the measuring tape …. is insane.

          • Jane, you’re wasting your time with Reader.
            What you have to do with people like her is reverse the genders on their argument. Even if you don’t convince them, you’ll expose how capricious, bigoted and unjust their motivations are.

        • Reader:
          In other words, what is not fair about the statement that “If you want to get credit for being a father, then put in the work.” ?

          If you want equal parenting, then set up your marriage that way with both parents earning and both parents parenting and both parents doing half the unpaid work.
          ===========
          You know what’s interesting about this? No matter the calls to justice or fairplay, benefit of the child, equal rights or anything else you just stick by your golden mantra:
          “If a father wants shared custody after divorce he should have set up his marriage that way”
          and parroting it back over & over.

          Back in the 70’s I will give you that women were royally screwed over in divorce. All a father had to do was jump state or work under the table to evade child support payments, and family court didn’t have the right to jail him for arrearages or look at his bank records.

          You remind me of the millions of 1970’s misogynistic bastards who upon hearing about the misery heaped upon women in divorce, stymied progress by endlessly parroting over & over “If she woulda kept her legs crossed, she wouldn’t be in this mess!”

          But he’s evading child support payments!
          “If she woulda kept her legs crossed, she wouldn’t be in this mess!”
          But he just got a big inheritance!
          “If she woulda kept her legs crossed, she wouldn’t be in this mess!”
          Don’t you think a man should support his kids?
          “If she woulda kept her legs crossed, she wouldn’t be in this mess!”

          How is it far to lock men into their work/life balance choice and not women?
          “If he wants shared parenting, he should have setup his marriage that way!”
          What about the civil rights abuse of having parenting time decided by an ex & family court?
          “If he wants shared parenting, he should have setup his marriage that way!”
          What about the benefit of the child who needs dads?
          “If he wants shared parenting, he should have setup his marriage that way!”

          You’re about as useless (AND BIASED AND BIGOTED) as those a-holes were.

          Kudo’s you get the John D sarcastic golf clap award:
          CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP

        • Wellokaythen says:

          I’ll answer the question put to me. I’ll try to explain what I think I meant by “not entirely fair.”

          I think the idea is generally fair that a parent in a custody case should get parent status based on what parenting that person has done in the past. Note that in this last sentence I said “parent” in a gender-neutral sense.

          What I see as unfair is the way that it seems to be practiced. I’m not hearing a comparable standard applied to mothers. I know that this is a men’s issues blog and the article is about fathers’ rights, so I get that fathering is the main focus. In practice, though, and based on what one of Reader’s messages suggested, mothers seem to get the benefit of the doubt more than fathers. Also, the decision to work outside the home versus working in unpaid childcare in the home is not something that men and women have completely equal choices over. (I think Reader is suggesting that men and women should have the same, equal choices about staying at home or going off to work, and in that I would agree.) It is not something either parent has full control over.

          I can’t help but think that for many fathers there’s a dilemma. If both parents stay at home and bring in no paycheck (a situation of gender equality!) the dad is the deadbeat and the mom is the martyr.

          I would support the idea that being in a breadwinner role would count for something in a custody case. Bringing home the resources that help to raise a child should count for something. In cases where people are trying to adopt, the adoption agency certainly looks at someone’s ability to provide material resources. Two equally unemployed low-income spouses generally don’t get to adopt, so apparently being a good parent must have something to do with providing financially.

          I wouldn’t quite put it the way that John D. did in his reply, but I concur with his basic idea about the double standard. Saying if men are unsatisfied with the divorce terms then they should have planned a better marriage for themselves sounds a bit like saying to a woman unsatisfied with her divorce should have planned a better marriage. If a divorced father fails to pay child support for his children, well, that mother should have thought about that before she had children. Perhaps “unfair” is not the best word for what I’m saying. There is a sort of an “eye for an eye” fairness to it. Maybe “callous” is more what I’m thinking than “unfair.”

          Although, to be completely fair, I confess I am prepared to accept Reader’s logic about marriage and divorce if we can apply the same standard to paying alimony. If “you get what you put into it,” then everyone gets to keep their paychecks just as they are when they divorce. If a spouse made the terrible, selfish decision to work outside the home and made more money than the other spouse, then in all fairness each keeps his or her paycheck. If one is left with less money than the other, well that poorer person should have made different choices within the marriage.

  22. J.G. te Molder says:

    Got, what an absolutely horrific misandric article. Let’s start with the reason for including fathers into raising children, which they already were, but, let’s leave that aside for now. Is it better for the kids? Better for relationships? Better for men? Nope, it isn’t even better for women in general, not it’s better for the power mechanic. Yes, give women more and more power regardless of how much they already have, that’s the key!

    Then there’s the standard power-hungry horror of feminism: the personal is the political. After all, if the personal is simply left to persons, that might mean they make different choices than the one I demand they make! Quick, destroy freedom of choice, for we must choose for them, otherwise they are just wrong, evil, and hurting us poor women, even if they are woman themselves!

    And there’s the next untruth, “a small segment of radicals!” We kinda forget that that “small segment of radicals” has direct lines to the US president and can get him to change alleviation programs in the hundreds of billions of dollars, gets millions if not billions of dollars in funding, and has complete outreach programs everywhere, and all the so-called main-stream, feminists for actual equality, well… they don’t do anything about it, not even a single “no” crosses their lips.

    Yes, let’s move forward with solid and convincing arguments – that only come from the MRA side, but let’s ignore and marginalize them with outright lies or pseudo-science, language programming to attempt to fool you and outright misandric statements like: “The way feminism helps men get equal parenting rights is by getting them access to their emotional range, adult communication skills, awareness of social/economic/political systems, etc that they need to be good parents.” Thanks for letting us know if you’re one of the “mainstream feminists who truly believe in equality”, or one of the “radical misandric minority.”

    (Ooh, that sentence was rather blatant wasn’t it, let’s remove it from the article, either by the author or a mod, I don’t know. Too late though, it already got quoted.)

    For example, when fathers feel the pain of having an unjust court ripping your children away and making you pay ungodly sums for the privilege, it’s not they that have their children ripped away, no, it’s the changing gender roles that’s the problem. If only we make them adjust to the changing gender roles, they can handle their children getting ripped away and paying for it just fine… which seems to be the opposite of changing the gender roles, but eh…

    But quick, after giving us a token description of men’s issues to make everyone believe you actually care about men’s issues don’t bother discussing those issues, remind everyone that the women who got their children and get inordinate amounts of money paid to them by the father they ritualistically slaughtered in court, are the ones really disadvantaged. Because after all, proper linguistic programming, is done by first lowering the targets defenses by speaking agreements and mentioning their issues in order to make them think you’re neutral or even on their side, and then, with the defenses lowered, slipping in the propaganda. Sorry, but my defenses and firewalls stay up, my logic remains going, stuff like that doesn’t work on me.

    Oh, yes, there comes the propaganda! The economic sacrifices women make for their children! It isn’t like they get to spend 65% of all income, virtually all of what the husband makes going to her, when she isn’t the one spending it, it isn’t like she has part time jobs, a job performed from the home, or not a job at all, and gets to spend more quality time with kids because of it, no! They are just lies! And her choosing it!? No, it’s the husband that forces her, or the patriarchy, or both, despite the fact if he tried to be the stay-at-home dad in virtually all of the cases he find himself soon in front of those biased family courts, and getting claimed not to be a proper man – as claimed by feminists, for example in feminist books discussed right here on this site, how men stay children and don’t grow up into… men.

    Oh, the horror women keep feeling, no, let’s not go with another men’s issue and example like Vladek Filler in Maine, no, that would be equal. Let’s name the horrible criticism a woman faced for abandoning her children and coming back, something men never have to face. No, it’s only that they are expected to pay child support by judges, that the woman never had to pay, sometimes four times what they make, and expected to continue to pay the same level of child support even when lose their job. And if they can’t, they go to jail. But criticism of a woman that just abandoned her children, truly, so much worse than being imprisoned for not abandoning your children and losing your job during economic crisis! :thumbs up:

    Grand article, the linguistic programming attempt was their, but it wasn’t quite up to snuff. I’ve heard better.

  23. This is a small victory and an indication of why there are fathers rights groups.

    “PROVO — Police report that a Provo woman was arrested Thursday for sexually abusing her daughter as a tactic in a custody dispute.
    According to a police affidavit, Tiffany Marie Petrossi admitted to using a jagged fingernail to injure her daughter in 2009. At the time, she allegedly accused the child’s father, Jesse Huffaker, of committing the sexual abuse. The affidavit states that Petrossi told police she had found injuries on the child immediately after a custody exchange with Huffaker in August 2009.
    Petrossi eventually obtained a protective order against Huffaker, the affidavit states, and made a sworn statement about finding blood in her daughter’s diaper. Huffaker reportedly was arrested and held on charges of aggravated sexual abuse of a child.
    But when investigators performed an analysis of the evidence in the case, they found no male DNA, the affidavit states, and the case against Huffaker was dismissed. Utah County Prosecutor Chad Grunander explained that Huffaker never was formally charged in the case.
    “There were just too many questions about the evidence,” Grunander said.
    The affidavit states that in March the father approached police and expressed his suspicion that the woman had committed the abuse in order to influence their mutual custody dispute. When police questioned the woman about the allegations, she reportedly admitted she had caused the injuries to implicate the father.”

    (http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/central/provo/article_13544491-50ae-558b-9ad1-6fb7ad27e27b.html?mode=story)

  24. Reader

    No I did not generalise that all women in divorce courts have disorders, as you well know. I was talking specifically about the ones that are using children and the courts as a proxy weapon against their ex. and the ones that make a unilateral decision to exclude or replace the father without good reason and so generate the existence of fathers rights groups.
    And you have blamed the victim, and “patriarchy” for the behaviour of these women, you have also repeatedly implied that there will be no recourse for these men and their children unless certain ideological demands are met and this is the tone the OP is taking too, using abuse and children as leverage, its an immoral position that rooted in blackmail, emotional violence and child abuse.

    • Jayne –

      I am sorry but people who subscribe to a “movement’ (i.e. the MRA rhetoric) that identifies itself only by the father’s needs and rights and not by those of the children and the mother is, by it’s own definition, not capable of parenting (by the definition of child development and other experts).

      I have listed a number of men who are excellent fathers and have blogs, books, organizations devoted to this. (Badalement, Vachon, Pruett, JASmith, Poulter, Real, etc) They recognize fatherhood as a responsibility to be there personally to meet the needs of children, not just a “right.”

      In contrast, everything I see of this MRA “movement,” on blogs like Glenn Sacks’ and on this website in the comments by MRAs and the articles written by them, spouts a childish “me-first” and “me-only” ideology that is defeating itself on its own terms.

      My sense is that these MRA men made choices to be “dominant” in their families, made their careers more important than their wives’, chose women who were not interested or capable of equal partnership, did not do the unpaid work of being a real dad while the marriage was intact, and only NOW want equal parenting. Sorry, but choices have consequences. These men can’t even deal with the consequences of their own choices without blaming everyone but themselves.

      The only women I know who support this stuff are (a) the “second wives’ club,” i.e. women who have gotten into relationships with divorced men and want the money that is going to child support and/or alimony to go to them, and/or who need to cater to these men because they are not able to stand on their own and (b) women who are identified with patriarchal men in a type of Stockholm Syndrome – they no longer identify as women or think that way psychologically and are only able to see the MRA perspective, not even their own.

  25. anyway

    Fathers rights is not about wage gap, making fathers rights about wage gap is just feminist slight of hand.

    Father rights is about abusive women abusing their partners and their children by abusing the system,

    Not disparities in visible taxable earnings due to lifestyle choices.

  26. Actually

    Shared parenting would have a pro female effect on the wage gap, divorced men wouldn’t have to work as much because of parenting time and the reduced alimony and child support, divorced women would have more time to work and have more incentive to do so…

    And wage gap has nothing to with this

    The outrageous Peter Spitz case, in a nutshell:
    Mother shoots and kills mother-in-law and shoots sleeping husband three times, permanently disabling him.
    Mother is acquitted by reason of insanity
    Mother is being relased from custody and can now spend time with their son but father, who has never been found cuplable of any wrongdoing, cannot.
    h ttp://www.fathersandfamilies.org/enews/cv/enews-20110412.html

  27. Wellokaythen:
    I got short with Reader because this is about the 4th thread in which she has regurgitated her mantra that men have nothing to cry about post-divorce if they setup their marriage in the provider/carer model.

    There have been several other instances when me & others have challenged her mantra and played “switch the genders” to show that if a mother of divorce had to seek approval from her ex & family court to build a life outside of strict caring time because she was “locked in” to the roles she chose for 18-25 years this would correctly be seen as a huge civil rights abuse, and other analogies, and inversions/conversions on her point.

    In every single other one of those threads (and I strongly suspect will be the case with your comment too).
    She simply stops posting.

    It’s obvious why: because she doesn’t believe in equality. How could she (???) and still post that drivel?

    She doesn’t care about fathers struggles, she doesn’t care about the fact that 1/3rd of children of divorce lose permanent contact with fathers after divorce, she doesn’t care about all the social science studies I posted showing GREATLY IMPROVED outcomes for children with frequent contact with dads. SHE. JUST. DOESN’T. CARE.

    As with most feminists, woman’s issues are EVERYBODY’S problem, but men’s (or father’s) issues certainly aren’t HER problem.

    What’s truly funny is that the invited author of the article actually praised Reader early on in the comments. The reason I find that funny is that if Reader is worthy of praise as a exemplary feminist–then anybody who puts the title feminist on their name tag should SERIOUSLY start questioning what movement they are signing on to.

    • John D

      I am sorry but people who subscribe to a “movement’ (i.e. the MRA rhetoric) that identifies itself only by the father’s needs and rights and not by those of the children and the mother is, by it’s own definition, not capable of parenting (by the definition of child development and other experts).

      I have listed a number of men who ARE excellent fathers and have blogs, books, organizations devoted to this. (Badalement, Vachon, Pruett, JASmith, Poulter, Real, etc) They recognize fatherhood as a responsibility to be there personally to meet the needs of children, not just a “right.” They get equal parenting, and have those good effects on their kids, because they show up and do the work of it, including the emotional and psychological work of focusing on others’ needs, especially their children’s needs, not just their own.

      In contrast, everything I see of this MRA “movement,” on blogs like Glenn Sacks’ and on this website in the comments by MRAs and the articles written by them, spouts a childish “me-first” and “me-only” ideology. It is defeating itself on its own terms; it doesn’t take NOW or wise family court judges to see that these MRA men are not ready for adult parenting.

      As I’ve noted, my sense is that these MRA men made choices to be “dominant” in their families, made their careers more important than their wives’, chose women who were not interested or capable of equal partnership, did not do the unpaid work of being a real dad while the marriage was intact, and only NOW want equal parenting.

      Sorry, but choices have consequences. These men can’t even deal with the consequences of their own choices without blaming everyone but themselves.

      There are other paths to equal parenting EVEN after a divorce, when a patriarchal man’s choices have come home to roost. Stop blaming women for your problems, be accountable for your choices, support your ex-wife in developing economic autonomy, take parenting classes, learn to relate to people. Eventually you may be able to reverse the damage your choices caused, but you have to earn it.

      • Per Reader:

        “They recognize fatherhood as a responsibility to be there personally to meet the needs of children, not just a “right.” They get equal parenting, and have those good effects on their kids, because they show up and do the work of it, including the emotional and psychological work of focusing on others’ needs, especially their children’s needs”
        —–
        The work as DEFINED BY YOU. I think it’s strange that feminists state there are no (or few) innate gender differences, then make it sound like fathers who work long hours outside the home are just doing what they love, or being selfish.

        Per Reader:
        “As I’ve noted, my sense is that these MRA men made choices to be “dominant” in their families”
        —–
        Says who? Once again it’s only through the intense dehumanization of fathers that somebody who can think that working long hours and missing precious moments with their family in order to provide that family a high standard of living is DOMINATION.

        It’s not domination, it is sacrifice. Strangely when WOMEN do it, people seem to understand! Like the mother who’s miner husband was injured so she took a job mining. She was on the cover of Time. When WOMEN do it, it’s correctly determined to be a sacrificial move. When men doing their beings selfish!

        How would you know the pain fathers feel sacrificing those long hours and missing his child’s first steps, first words, first day at school, first bike ride (considering your monumental lack of empathy)? Considering the world of shit we are in because so many bad dads willingly walk away from children it is heart-wrenching to me to see people like you and vengeful exes and family courts destroy any chance loving fit dads have of being in their children’s lives.

        Men commit 80% of successful suicides. Fathers rate of suicides triples after divorce. This is probably the result of having his children stolen by vengeful exes and misandric enabling family courts, then told to “take it like a man”. And he does take it like a man–he opts out in the largest way possible. Society doesn’t empathise with men. Society doesn’t help men, or by extension fathers. Even when the evidence is so clear that helping fathers, helps kids too.

        To take a twist on Wellokaythen’s point:
        If a group came along and enacted legislation that when mothers and fathers split up, they should each keep their own earning power separate with no compensation due either way and justified the now millions of destitute mothers of divorce by saying “If these women wanted different outcomes in their divorce, they should have made wiser decisions in marriage” these would be seen to be paper-thin justifications that were DEEPLY rooted in injustice and inequality AND HARMFUL.

        In other words a group who tried to benefit fathers w/cash the way you want to benefit mothers w/parenting time would rightly be seen to be totally despotic a-holes.

        Let’s examine your point a little further. According to you these fathers will have poor parenting skills. Even accepting this point, how would this put these fathers into any different a position than FIRST TIME PARENTS?
        Oh my god, how does the earth survive with dozens of millions of first time parents yearly raising babies?

        I am quite sure that you would NEVER support legislation barring first-time (would be) welfare mothers access to their babies based upon default judgements of unfitness. Why is this okay to do to fathers?

        Per Reader:
        “Sorry, but choices have consequences”
        —-
        Yes, but choices are malleable (for women). Women in divorce or marriage are allowed to slide from total provider mode to total care-giver mode or anywhere in between anytime she wants changing AS OFTEN as she wants with the rest of family or friends burdened with the responsibility of adapting. Only men (according to your f*cked up theory) are locked into their choices for 18-25 years, regardles of justice, equal rights, or DEMONSTRABLE HARM TO THE CHILD.
        Apparently, fathers fighting for this same right as mothers (and fighting to BE parents) is: “spouts a childish “me-first” and “me-only” ideology”.

        You also never addressed any of the studies I posted showing greatly improved outcomes for children when loving fit dads are involved in children’s lives.
        These studies are just the tip of the iceberg. There are many dozens of studies which show greatly improved outcome for children who have frequent contact with loving fit dads in their life. DO YOU EVEN CARE??????

        You have proved what you are. You are bigoted and biased, and have an axe of some kind to grind against fathers. What sounds so noble when coming out of your lips is actually just a new brand of despotism and supremacist hateful bs.

        I think deep in your heart you MUST know this. Even if you don’t I hope some on this board have come to recognize how truly broken feminism is, and ultimately how it HARMS millions of children.

        This is the beginning of the end of bigots like you being the “go to” people to discuss equality.

  28. Well, Mark, anytime you feel tough enough to put your money where your mouth is, you just let me know, okay?

    Otherwise, if you aren’t willing to analyze and defend the proof you link us to, please don’t bother claiming that anything is “proven”. You’re as much of an ideologue as the feminists you condemn, scarfed to death that someone will actually pull a fine-toothed comb through your “evidence”.

    So much for MRA complaints that it’s the feminists who aren’t willing to look through the evidence, I guess. :D

  29. John,

    I originally wrote a long post in reply to you, but due to TGMPM’s charming habit of automatically updating the page, I lost most of it.

    Here are the highlights…

    First of all, you make global claims regarding men and women and work, but it seems to me that most of your experience with work comes from middle class U.S. professions – in other words, the small minority of the world’s work situations.

    Even in those, you seem to show some charming conceits, as for example when you think of a “maid” as basically some self-employed house cleaner when the vast majority of people doing that sort of scutwork are not setting their own schedules and agendas.

    Or where you seem to think of Farmer John on his tractor when I say “agricultural laborer” rather than Maria who probably picks your lettuce.

    Worst of all, however, is the fact that you try to make “death professions” into some sort of a male norm, backing this up with dubious stats like “95% of the work-related death in the world happens to men” (Really? How do we know that? Does the UN do some sort of census or what? Because I’ve never seen decent work-related death stats for Brazil and, globally speaking, we’re probably among the better countries when it comes to something like that).

    John, your argument seems to be that personal choice lies behind all job and career decisions and that we’re all on some sort of liberal, level playing field. But simply ASKING most people who work for a living will show you that most often people do the work that’s available: NOT what they’d normally choose to do.

    Farrell definitely does not promote the idea that the choices men and women make with regards to work take place in a vacuum, constrained only by the individual will. That’s a rather odd interpretation of the man’s work if you ask me.

    As for kyriarchy and what not, it’s precisely the “big picture” I object to: I prefer the analysis of really occurring social situations and the construction of theory based on that rather than the use of statistics which are almost always poorly collected and even worse analyzed.

    Why do I think women get the bad end of the job stick? Because I interview women in female-oriented jobs, particularly prostitutes, and almost every prostitute I know turns to that sort of work because the other options available to her are much worse. You tell me about “choice”, but I don’t see much range of choice in the lives of the women I interview. The choices are “Prostitute or check out girl? Domestic labor or bit work at a factory?”

    Furthermore, social roles and expectations DEFINITELY come into play in their life decisions. The vast majority of women in the world aren’t middle class or even lower middle class women living in American suburbia, John. Most of the women I talk to get crap for an education (as do the men). When they get pregnant, they don’t get paid time off or maternity leave: they LOSE their jobs. If their mate doesn’t or can’t help them support the kid, they need to either pay someone to do it or do it themselves. Society doesn’t allow them to simply ditch the kid and walk away from their responsabilities. I DID INDEED allow men to do precisely this until the recent, feminist-inspired changes in child-support laws made that a dicey deal.

    Women still get stuck with a lion’s share of the domestic labor that reproduces everyday life in the world and which isn’t seen as work at all by most people, including, apparently, you. Staying at home with the kids seems to be a fun deal to you when it’s hard work and not very rewarding. I’ve done a lot of shit jobs in my life and child care is one of the most exhausting and it pays the least. In fact, in education, it’s axiomatic: the further away you are from the little kiddies. the less disagreeable work you do and the more you get paid.

    As far as I can see, John, you have much more in common with the feminists you dislike than you do with social scientists. You ahev a political position and you want the evidence to support that position, so you cherry pick what you want to see, even to the point of ignoring the everyday life expectancies of millions upon millions of people.

    • Hey, It’s only 3.5 weeks later, but I tripped across this page & saw your message & figured it deserved a reply.

      Per Thaddeus:
      “First of all, you make global claims regarding men and women and work, but it seems to me that most of your experience with work comes from middle class U.S. professions – in other words, the small minority of the world’s work situations.
      Even in those, you seem to show some charming conceits, as for example when you think of a “maid” as basically some self-employed house cleaner when the vast majority of people doing that sort of scutwork are not setting their own schedules and agendas.
      Or where you seem to think of Farmer John on his tractor when I say “agricultural laborer” rather than Maria who probably picks your lettuce.”

      Well, by all means feel free to disabuse me of my false notions.
      Please provide citations for the %’s of women in lowly farmhand workers, or citations of the % of maids who are self-employed–or did you really think that an opinion would debunk another opinion? A researcher should know better.
      In fact, in addition to the two citations I just asked for, you’ve never provided me with citations for nursing being “dangerous” work which you claimed. Where did that citation go? For a researcher, you seem to like positing your opinion as fact an awful awful lot. Let’s not forget–I invited you to make this about facts by providing many many citations. Instead you seem only interested in bandying about alternating examples.

      Per Thaddeus:
      “Worst of all, however, is the fact that you try to make “death professions” into some sort of a male norm, backing this up with dubious stats like “95% of the work-related death in the world happens to men” (Really? How do we know that? Does the UN do some sort of census or what? Because I’ve never seen decent work-related death stats for Brazil and, globally speaking, we’re probably among the better countries when it comes to something like that).”

      I never stated those were global. They are for the USA, although I would say that it’s actually probably much worse (for men) in other countries. But, that is an opinion and I do not have citations for it, nor could I provide proof as other countries numbers are probably not to be trusted.
      But, since you don’t like statements, here is a citation:
      ht tp://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5613a1.ht m
      Excerpt:
      “In 2005, U.S. workers died from an injury while at work at a rate of 4.0 per 100,000 workers. Males accounted for 93% of all deaths and had a work-related fatality rate approximately 12 times the rate for females (6.9 per 100,000 workers versus 0.6).”
      That took me all of 4minutes to find. Maybe I should be a researcher too?

      Per Thaddeus:
      “John, your argument seems to be that personal choice lies behind all job and career decisions and that we’re all on some sort of liberal, level playing field. But simply ASKING most people who work for a living will show you that most often people do the work that’s available: NOT what they’d normally choose to do.” Not precisely. You’ve misrepresented my point slightly to make it easy to knock-down.

      My point central point is A)that the options avalable to workers of the death professions and other high-compensation jobs (even low-skilled and somewhat highly compensated jobs like garbage collector, roofer, sanitation worker) are FREELY available to women and B) women do not choose these jobs, because they have been given a societal message that their lives & safety have worth in and of themselves (remember the makeup commercial “Because you’re worth it”? Can you even figure a similar example of an ad directed at males? Of course not. Men don’t have inherent worth, only women do.)

      Men have been given a somewhat different message that they only have worth for what they can bring to the table–and that if they have no skills, then they must be prepared to exchange their bodies to bring strong options to the table to attract a woman.

      Mainstream Authors & activists talk about the negative consequences of impossible beauty standards on women all the time, but hardly anything is mentioned about the other side of the coin the millions of “washouts” at the male provider role (90% homeless are men, 80% of all suicides, 80% of all incarcerations) even though we’re drowning in them.

      I told you that the Consad report was the largest report of it’s kind that controlled for more variables (i.e. choice) than any other report before it. This report found that from 4.5% to 7.1% of the wage gap was “for reasons unknown” (which might be due to discrimination). The report also stated that an even more well controlled report might find even less than that (this report did not control for factors where an employee might choose a job because they had daycare or premium healthcare but lower wages and other issues). I told you if you wanted to argue facts, then start there and debunk that report. Why are we still clashing opinions upon opinions? We can do that all year.

      Per Thaddeus:
      “Farrell definitely does not promote the idea that the choices men and women make with regards to work take place in a vacuum, constrained only by the individual will. That’s a rather odd interpretation of the man’s work if you ask me.”
      I’m not sure we’re arguing apples and oranges as the only Farrell book I have read was Myth of Male Power. I don’t know which books you have read or are talking about. My main point is that Farrell doesn’t necessarily state (in that book) that people are “socialized” but he does definitely talk about societal messages.

      However, I will surrender that topic to you as he does state something very similar to social roles or socialization, but not necessarily using those words (in terms of nuances the gist I get from Farrell doesn’t seem to be one of pigeon-holing people the way you seem to speak–but maybe that has changed in his more recent works).

      However, what is new about Farrell’s comments in Myth of Male Power (despite the book being fairly old now) is #1 the mentioning of the laws/socialization of men to be disposable (compared to the months & months of reading from a slew of authors a person could slog through on the socialization of women from many authors), and #2 the statement from Farrell that even laws upon the books won’t be enforced until there is a large enough social force to enforce them. A good example is the obvious gender discrimination in Selective Service.

      If a man fails to enroll in Selective Service within 30 days of his 18th birthday, the following detrimental things may happen:
      1) he is inelligible for student loans and grants (from the government), 2 he is ineligible for federal government jobs, 3 if prosecuted he can serve up to 7 years in jail. Farrell pointed out that when society was stating:”her body her choice” for women, the post office (the place you sign up for selective service) there were advertisement posters that showed a man’s torso (head & waist were out of the frame of the picture) with a white tee shirt with the words: “A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do” then had a blurb about selective service at the bottom.

      Farrell was elected to the New York chapter of NOW 3 times. He is an egalitarian minded man who like others realizes that there is AT LEAST as much negative consequences for men from gender roles as there is for women (however counter-pointed to huge tax-exempted charities which help women, men’s ills get no help & little mention). Feminism (proven beyond a doubt by their leaders deeds and actions) are not here to help men with those consequences, but to stand in the way of men’s equal rights, as I have shown on this blog.

      There are a growing body of published authors like him who are good egalitarian minded people who have turned away from the feminist movement or even oppposed it. This list grows longer & noisier day by day as the blatant bias and bigotry of the feminist movement reveals itself more and more.

      Per Thaddeus:

      “As for kyriarchy and what not, it’s precisely the “big picture” I object to: I prefer the analysis of really occurring social situations and the construction of theory based on that rather than the use of statistics which are almost always poorly collected and even worse analyzed.”

      I have my doubts about your research methods. You’ve derailed about a third of this thread about fathers into the wage gap myth. Secondly, when presented with the long history feminists have of being directly opposed to fathers equal rights, you never rang in with any comment (even if only one of disbelief). Lastly, when presented with inconvenient facts (like the provent disposability of men, or that work outside the home that gets men these higher wages) you just refuse to discuss them (unless it’s in your sayonara speech about how biased I am).

      I would have grave doubts about any kyriarchy work done by you or somebody like you. History has shown again & again, that when liberals (particularly liberal feminists) comb through history to show disadvantage men get selected out. A good example is modern high school history books which might detail something like the intense exploitation of workers to build the trans-continental railroad. Many of these workers were poor blacks, asians, indians etc..
      What is missing from this comment is that while a disproportionate amount of these workers may have been minorities, 100% were men. The research will only be as good as the researcher.

      Per Thaddeus:
      “Why do I think women get the bad end of the job stick? Because I interview women in female-oriented jobs, particularly prostitutes, and almost every prostitute I know turns to that sort of work because the other options available to her are much worse. You tell me about “choice”, but I don’t see much range of choice in the lives of the women I interview. The choices are “Prostitute or check out girl? Domestic labor or bit work at a factory?”

      What a total copout. What a spit in the face to women who work two or three minimum wage jobs to make it in life (this reminds me of the bruehaha about the duke 3: they were total wastes of humanity for hiring a stripper, but the stripper who accused them was “doing what was necessary to raise her kids” bullsh1t). I know because my mom was one of them.

      Believe it or not, I was raised by a single mother and I understand these choices a lot better than you do. You know why? Because I can see it from the OTHER side. The side of a woman with no skills who didn’t copout, who put in all the hours necessary at low-paying jobs to provide for her kids. My mom was one of these women who had to work & child mind–and it’s not easy. It would have been much easier with a father, but that was not to be.

      THEY HAVE CHOICES! My mom is living proof of it. They just gave up and abdicated responsibility for their life. These are simply the female equaivalents to the millions of addicted male hobos littering inner cities. I don’t see you crying rivers for these millions of homeless men. If you’re going to show sympathy for quitters at least be consistent (ooops, there I go being biased again! Asking you to show sympathy to both sexes! Dangit! I’ve got to work on that! I’m so f*cking biased!).

      Women have the same choices to abuse their bodies that men do. There is NOTHING stopping women working as garbage collectors, or roofers or if need be 2 or 3 minimum wage jobs. It was good enough for my mom. To paint these womens poor choices as suffering a fate that was beyond their power (and excusing it as a disadvantage against women) is just demeaning to women. You’re infantilizing them.

      “Furthermore, social roles and expectations DEFINITELY come into play in their life decisions. The vast majority of women in the world aren’t middle class or even lower middle class women living in American suburbia, John. Most of the women I talk to get crap for an education (as do the men). When they get pregnant, they don’t get paid time off or maternity leave: they LOSE their jobs. If their mate doesn’t or can’t help them support the kid, they need to either pay someone to do it or do it themselves. Society doesn’t allow them to simply ditch the kid and walk away from their responsabilities. I DID INDEED allow men to do precisely this until the recent, feminist-inspired changes in child-support laws made that a dicey deal.”

      You know what you’ve just laid out? A GOOD REASON FOR FATHER CUSTODY! Maybe if the law stated that mothers & fathers would split custody instead of over 80% of mothers getting sole custody then the women could work, and dad would be stuck with minding the child. Matriarchy hurts women too!

      But, feminists DON’T want dads in their childrens lives.
      Read this article critiquing NOW for it’s bashing of Bush’s Fatherhood Initiative which gave money to ACF (admin for children & families). ht tp://articles.courant.com/2007-04-01/news/0704010664_1_bar-women-fatherhood-women-infants-and-children

      NOW started a lawsuit against the $100 million program to help poor inner city fathers to become better dads because it was gender oriented. This in the face of billions in welfare that predominantly helps women.

      Feminists want women freed from men, but dependent on the state. According to the poverty institute, what poor inner city kids need are dads, not a government check. Pushing equal parental leave laws & fighting for father’s equal custody & shared parenting would make a gigantic leap to solving many of the problems you mentioned in your last paragraph.

      Per Thaddeus:
      “Women still get stuck with a lion’s share of the domestic labor that reproduces everyday life.” No, they choose it. They could choose to break their bodies and minds and spirits and die 7 years earlier as men do, but instead let men do that sh1twork (and share in the mens earnings), while staying home to bond with their children. Oh the inhumanity!

      Per Thaddeus:
      “Staying at home with the kids seems to be a fun deal to you when it’s hard work and not very rewarding. I’ve done a lot of sh1t jobs in my life and child care is one of the most exhausting and it pays the least. In fact, in education, it’s axiomatic: the further away you are from the little kiddies. the less disagreeable work you do and the more you get paid.”

      Once again, you’re mixing points. Are you talking about daycare, or caring for your own children? It’s impossible to tell from your statement.

      These are WORLDS apart. The main thing is that caring for your own children grows your bond with them. IT IS VERY REWARDING! (Coincindentally, this is why Glenn Sacks got into father’s rights. He was a stay-at-home dad for several years. While he wouldn’t state it thusly, he found what total bunk the feminist statement was that child-minding (your own kids that is) is the sh1t-work of the family. Sacks is a pro-gay, egalitarian minded liberal. We will be getting more converts from the left & the right as equal father rights transcends party lines. Furthermore it is of great benefit to kids and smacks of justice and equality, and has been for far too long overlooked.)

      How you get that I think child-minding is fun from my statement that it is EASIER than about 90% of paid work is beyond me. By that logic if I were to say that riding an asphalt paver in 90 degree heat is easier than cutting down trees with an axe in 90 degree heat, I’ve just said riding the paver in 90 degree heat is easy & fun. Another strawman.

      Per Thaddeus:
      “As far as I can see, John, you have much more in common with the feminists you dislike than you do with social scientists. You have a political position and you want the evidence to support that position, so you cherry pick what you want to see, even to the point of ignoring the everyday life expectancies of millions upon millions of people.” Yeah you’re right I do have a political position. It’s called justice (and I want to help kids too–my bad).

      Yeah, clearly I’m the problem. Feminism stands in direct opposition to equal father custody rights, they re-direct 42% of Obama’s stimulus bill for “shovel ready jobs” from manufacturing and construction (which shed millions of jobs, and mostly male employed) to medicine and education (which had almost emerged un-scathed and are mostly female dominated) and I’m the problem.

      Did you know that the oldest nationally accredited black fraternity wrote a letter to Obama imploring him to create a cabinet-level office for men & boys like he did for women & girls? Of course he resoundingly ignored them. Obama can’t piss off his feminist compatriots because he wants to get re-elected.

      Helping men is a big no-no. Even if creating that office would DISPROPORTIONATELY help the most disenfranchised men (like poor black/latino) he can’t risk feminists standing opposed to his re-election bid. So much for feminism being here to help men. So much for kyriarchy and helping ALL those in need. So much for an objective stance on who the down-trodden are.

      You keep substituting opinion for fact, ignoring inconvenient facts, rarely provide citations, steadfastly hold your position against a mountain of evidence while I have made admissions of some points being not quite right or having to go back & re-figure and have simply stated that I ADMIT women are victims when it comes to work/life choices, but men are too and I’M THE PROBLEM.

      You’re a laugh riot Thaddeus.

      It seems you’re beyond hope of help, but you may or may not find this interesting:
      ht tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZAuqkqxk9A&feature=channel_video_title

  30. Just had to contribute. I was a stay at home dad for 10 years. My Ex wife is a dorctor. she worked 14 and some times 18 hours a day. In the divorce court even after hearing this fact the judge was not conviced I was the primary care giver. He gave her temporary custody in which my daughters were left alone most of the time with my 13 year old in charge. When we got back to court the next time I proved that I was the primary care giver. I had barley seen my kids for weeks. I didn’t have the money for a lawyer any more. Had no access to my shop and tools that were at the house. I was homeless even for part of this time. Still I found work and a [lace to live. My ex lied and lied and lied some more. She called in people that had nothing to do with our family to testify about a member of my family that lives on the other side of the country. in court her lawyer would take all the time and I would get 5 minutes to defend myself.

    My marriage was set up where I was with the kids 80% of the time. I potty trained them taught them to read and write, make there beds cook and brush their teeth. All the songs they heard when they were little came out of my mouth. I never hit them or molested them or rapped my ex wife as she falsely claimed. She failed to get a restraining order but the family court system said I “was only good as a playmate” And because my ex claims I intimidate her because I am a large man and also because I am depressed because I don’t see my daughters barely at all I now only see them 24 hours a month with no over nights.

    no history of drug use, not an alcoholic, No history of violence. But one day I yelled at my 13 year old for not doing what she needed to do to be safe. My youngest tells her mom it was scary when I yelled and the DHS is called. So tell me. I did most of the parenting. I get to read articles of how a recovering drug addict gets to have her kids back. While I don’t see mine for weeks at a time. I live on block from their house and one block from the school. My ex spread so many rumors about me that some parents at the school now treat me with disdain and caution. I am a Pariah in my own community because of the horrible lies that were told about me. I even was asked to leave a job because of public relations worries for the company.
    This all happened and I was the parent that was there with the kids for 10 years. I was the parent that was faithful. I was the parent that went on most of the field trips and volunteered.
    I have been relentlessly bullied by her , her lawyer and the family court system. I was told there is no hope I will get to be the father I want to be for my girls. I was told that because I am depressed about not seeing them is why I don’t see them. I was told I can’t speak to my daughters if I see them outside my parenting time unless they speak to me. I was told that I can’t waive at my daughters from a distance even if they wave at me out side my parenting time. I was told I can only call my daughters once a week and even then I can only talk to them for 10 minutes.

    Criminal accusations were made against me and I proved they were untrue but only because I am a large man my children are denied a father. This is the doing of feminism.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] Questions for Profeminist Fathers,” we wanted to take a look back at Andrea Doucet’s piece, “MRAs and Feminism: Finding a Space for Fathers” (posted in April 2011 as a response to a debate here at the Good Men Project). Andrea makes the [...]

Speak Your Mind

*