There is an interesting programme on SBS at the moment, examing
the relationships between males and females from an evolutionary
biology point of view. A similar book is available from
Dymocks.

http://www.drtatiana.com/

Sounds like in evolutionary terms, males are just a means to an
end. They want their bit of nooky, females want good genes
and resources to raise the offspring.

Sounds like we have all watched too many holywood movies and
the real world is quite different :)

I hate to turn on my own, but HRS, put a sock in it. I have considered you an ally on a number of these threads, especially when you called Ronnie Peters a retard, which I thoroughly supported. I had assumed that your combative tone was merely in response to his. But TRTL and botheration are not Ronnie Peters.

TRTL questioned the 1/3 statistic in the very first post, but you have entangled him in a stupid argument over the nature of the word ilk. When TRTL said “To HRS and others of his ilk,” he was not denigrating men’s rights advocates, or insinuating the blanket label of “misogynist,” as CJ Morgan has recently done, but merely questioning tactics.

The black eye argument is one of the dumbest I’ve ever heard. I have a female friend who has been raped twice. The girl who held a knife to my throat and controlled my life for 6 years had received terrible abuse herself- her dad had held a gun to her and her mum’s heads, and the last time she saw him, he raped her mum in front of her eyes. But this anecdotal evidence does not support the argument that there is an epidemic of abuse against women. Neither does your anecdotal evidence support the argument that abuse of women is not at epidemic proportions. Asking where all the supposed abused women are, because you’ve never seen a black eye, just isn’t helping.

Botheration:

I appreciate your acknowledgement of the existence of abuse of males by females, but I share HRS’s confusion over your choice of links. Rather than arguing over who is a feminist and who is not, I would like to draw attention to http://www.reason.com/news/show/118168.html, and http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/stories/MYSA112707.parkerinterview.EN.465e8a23.html. These articles quote “feminists” Kathleen Parker and Cathy Young, who support arguments made by HRS, JamesH, myself and others:

An unfair representation of men as abusers;

“There is the sense that men can't be trusted and women and children can't be trusted with them, that all men are potential pedophiles.”

“the Super Bowl myth,”

“the inaccuracies and bias in the

2005 PBS documentary "Breaking the Silence: The Children's Stories," which painted fathers who seek custody of their children as presumptive abusers.”

The anti-male attitudes prevalent in society and the education system;

“Boys are falling behind,” Parker said. “We need to shift the pendulum back and make schools more appealing to boys… start treating our boys like we began treating our girls 20 years ago.”

(note to CJ- do you consider these women to be misogynists?)

Regarding “dissident feminists,” I get the impression that these dissidents receive just as much bile as men’s rights advocates (google Erin Pizzey.) When one considers all the different strands of feminism- radical, gender, environmental, Marxist, separatist, etc, the more moderate strands of equity or liberal feminism appear vastly outnumbered.

I would note Cathy Young’s comments:

“While feminists have called for more male involvement in child-rearing, the women's movement has also championed blatant favoritism toward mothers in child custody disputes, often to the point of vilifying fathers. This seems to be a clear case of putting solidarity with women over equity. While the fathers' rights movement has often been depicted as a patriarchal backlash, it is in many ways more faithful to the true feminist legacy than are the women's groups which endorse maternal chauvinism.”

This appears to be a criticism of the feminist mainstream, made by an outsider seeking to reform it, to return it to its egalitarian roots.

I am critical of “The Happy Feminist” article. Even though, on the surface, it appears to say some nice things about men, it reveals what I think is one of the fundamental flaws of feminism- lip service is paid to the way feminism liberates men from the restrictive norms of patriarchy, yet in reality it seek to break men down, reconstruct all the masculinity out of them, and build them back up in the image of what feminists think men should be. Feminism really doesn’t understand men. Its main focus is on women, (fair enough) but the liberation/ “betterment” of men is just an afterthought. As a result, men are left angry, confused, and alienated.

"It's the parents that don't have that respectful relationship that will not successfully share parenting, and it shouldn't be imposed on the kids, particularly when they're not use to the other parent playing such a large role.

Blanket shared parenting is ideological, misinformed, and unfair to children."
Posted by Liz, Saturday, 1 December 2007 7:56:36 PM

Firstly, I suppose it OK then that feminists/feminism has a blanket ideology when it suits.

Some sceptics in regards to the 'best interest of the children' ideology have written that this does not stand up to scrutiny when a childs best interests are not in the best interests of the mother!

As a child grows, their needs change, unfortunately in intact relationships as the kids mature, the primary income earner is usually building a career or trying to earn income to support the increasing costs of the family. (A double edged sword)

Just look at the politicans who have given up politics to have more family time.

Now I guess most primary care givers, in an intact relationship would be encouraging the primary income earner to spend more time with the kids.

Now suddenly the couple split, sorry you cant be more involved with the kids because you weren't involved before?

What a double standard!

Ideological equality is not something which can be conveniently ignored because it gets too hard or too difficult or doesn't fit with maternal chauvinism.

Hi Dozer. You wrote: "I share HRS’s confusion over your choice of links... These articles quote “feminists” Kathleen Parker and Cathy Young, who support arguments made by HRS, JamesH, myself and others..."

Which is exactly what I was trying to do. Find women who identified as feminists and supported fathers' rights. Point out that feminism is a broad, robust church, capable of sustaining different viewpoints. Battles within feminism are its strength, not its fault-line.

On this and other matters, HRS has never hidden his disdain for feminists in general and me in particular. Which is fine – all part of the cut and thrust – but which has prompted me to point out that his caricatured straw-woman of feminism bears little resemblance to the real deal. I – and my ilk – absolutely understand the psychological trauma a father must undergo if he feels he's been unfairly treated by a monolith like the Family Court. We know that men in the lowest socio-economic group are the unhappiest cohort in Australia. I resent how men have learnt to feel uncomfortable with children because of cultural fear of pedeophilia.

You also wrote this: "Its main focus is on women, (fair enough) but the liberation/ “betterment” of men is just an afterthought." If it's fair enough, then why all the complaining? It's in feminism's interest to understand men, and if we do it ill, then we should continue to try to get it right. I don't see this as a criticism, but a call to work. HOWEVER, men cannot expect the feminist movement to put them front and centre. Fathers' rights groups do not seek to put mothers front and centre – why would they? But these groups must learn to co-operate - it's in everyone's interest.

dozer, thanks for the comments to HRS. His simplistic and obsessive attitude about feminism sidetracks so many discussions which could be better used to find common ground. As someone who tries to promote better understanding of the damage done by gender bias in application of the family law system HRS's continued posts appear to be a major hindrance to that end.

R0bert