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
About Andrea Doucet
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
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.