Yvonne,

No I'm not serious. But it must create a conflict of interest sometimes. Say if you were a feminist in favour of affirmitive action, and you know that would disadvantage your son. Or watching your son get shafted by his ex wife using family law that was designed to protect women.

I know, I know, not many feminists accept the existance of the zero-sum game.

Usual Suspect, I get angry when I see anybody get 'shafted'. Male or female. In the end it is the kids who pay the prize. I've seen either gender parents get 'shafted'.

It is not the system. It is who gets to the best lawyer first who has the upper hand. Ideally it is the parent who does not wish to use the kids as a powerful weapon to score points against the other.

Feminism, as I, and very many other feminists that I know, see it is not about a competition with men. Competition in that there are winners and losers. It is about creating an equal playing field resulting in an equal chance at opportunities. Men and women each comprise about half of the human species. In an ideal world gender shouldn't come into it anymore.

Re affirmative action. Affirmative action is not only for the benefit of women. There can be any number of groups that benefit from affirmative action. Not only gender based.

For instance, I don't know if that is still going, if a male you had preference in admission to Uni for Primary school teaching. The Nursing profession has greatly benefited by the express encouragement of male student enrollment and subsequent male RN's working.

Why would my son feel that he had lost out if a woman was chosen over him, but not if the successful candidate were a man? Either way he would have lost out. That is how it goes, you know

yvonne,

'It is not the system. It is who gets to the best lawyer first who has the upper hand. Ideally it is the parent who does not wish to use the kids as a powerful weapon to score points against the other'

I think the prime carer has the upper hand really. Which is more often the woman.

It's a natural bias of society to see the mother as the most important parent. I don't see in a system that was originally lobbied for by feminists, and that proposes to put the child first, that the secondary carer who is only a father anyway is going to come out very well.

'Feminism, as I, and very many other feminists that I know, see it is not about a competition with men. '
Yes. But it is not always possible to further the interests of women without it being at the expense of men.

Affirmitive action can not be justified in any situation. It is grounded on the lazy assumption that if unequal numbers of men and women occupy a certain profession that it must be evidence of discrimination. It totally ignores free choice, and also assumes equal representation is the ideal in the first place. Men and women are different.

Affirmitive action counters assumed discrimination with actual discrimination.

'Why would my son feel that he had lost out if a woman was chosen over him, but not if the successful candidate were a man? '
If he lost out because he is a man, not based on ability.