I think Warick Marsh has done a very good job in helping to remind governments that fathers do actually exist. There may even be a policy for men and fathers some time in the future.

The demonisation of fathers is becoming less popular, when once it was routine in feminist circles and in the media.

In most cases, the “best interests of the child” is to have a father as well as a mother.

I can't speak from the view of a father but I can speak from the view of a child who did not have a father. Growing up in household where there was only one provider who was required to work longer hours just to make the money to survive is incredibly hard on a child.

In those formative years where a child grows in the nurturing environment of both their parents is mostly missing also later in life when a son would often learn about 'life' from his father is also not there. Seeing other children playing with their fathers down the beach or the park and knowing that your single parent is often to exhausted from work to do the same often feels like a knife. And of course when my time comes I will have no example from which to proceed.

The experience of having a father is one of the most important things in life for a child, there are some things that a mother just can't do. In an ideal world a child would have both a father and a mother, both sides of the coin to complete their life, having only one or the other just doesn't do it.

I would even go so far as to say that there needs to be more men willing to take on a farther type role in the lives of children. Not as a step father but as a strong male presence in their life, the friend next door or the nice guy down the street. For me, there were only a few times when someone took an interest in me, one was going down the beach fishing and the other was taking me along with his kids 4x4 driving. They are some of the few happier memories from my childhood, but most of the time people were too scared of getting involved or being labelled a pervert. Shame on those who would use that label in this case.

Children need their fathers, just as much as they need their mothers, no more than ever.

Apologies, last line should read:

Children need their fathers, just as much as they need their mothers, now more than ever.

"The demonisation of fathers is becoming less popular, when once it was routine in feminist circles and in the media" HRS can't you give it a miss just for once?

Certainly some men have been excluded from their children's lives by the actions of women in bitter breakups. They are a very small minority. The majority of Dad's are not being demonised in the slightest, and don't feel that they are being. They are juggling along with their spouses, partners and mothers of their children, though no longer in a relationship with those partners the hard slog of raising kids and doing damned well at it mostly. Mostly both parents are fair, recognise that children deserve both parents, and get over their personal feelings to each other.

Mostly... there are a few out there who feel demonised apparently.. HRS....?...

Maybe it's a sign of my comfortable middle class existence that I am surrounded by males who feature equally in their children's raising with the children's mothers. My own husband cut our kid's umbilical cords and they have been the centre of his existence ever since - which is over twenty years. So while I applaud anything to involve Dad's more, I don't know what my friends and spouse have been doing for twenty years - maybe just being the vanguard I guess. But more power to anything that helps more reticent males get involved.

JL Deland
I don't think you have the slightest concept of the type of things that have been done to exclude fathers from their children's lives.

Poor HRS. I'm sure you feel the dirty has been done to you. But like I said while the vast majority of people around me are recognising a childs right to have two decent (not all people are decent) parents around them and sorting their differences. I get to see other cases as well but I don't want to go into the bad men/bad women thing. It goes nowhere in circles.

I will say I know a number of families where either the father or mother has completely uprooted themselves from their families and left them with no financial or emotional support. I also have had a friend threatening to commit suicide after her children's father went absent for months and couldn't even be bothered to ring for the kids at Christmas. She thought he might be dead. Or the bloke who walked out on his month old baby and has never wanted to contact her despite living in the same city - he just went out and grew himself another family and completely rejected his lovely first child.

This has nothing to do with feminism or demonisation of fathers. The is just a minority of drop dead parents of both sexes. However I think probably arguing the point with you will go no where. I'm sure you are quite sure that it was a feminist that stole the baby up outside Alice Springs.

'In spite of what radical feminists may say about the ills of patriarchy, involved and loving fathers are foundational for the development of healthy children and strong families.'

This is deceitful rhetoric. It reads as if feminists say that involved and loving fathers are NOT foundational for the development of healthy children and strong familiies. Feminists - radical, moderate or otherwise - don't say this and never have.

In fact, feminists have always argued the opposite - that patriarchal society itself has kept men from their children, both emotionally and physically, while foisting by far the greater burden of child rearing onto women.

Arthur N

'And of course when my time [for fatherhood] comes I will have no example from which to proceed.'

Don't be hard on yourself. Look at it this way ... You have the advantage of being able to decide your own guidelines for fatherhood, based on your own feelings and experience. You will also find that the father void of your childhood will be the very motivation that drives you to participate more fully in your children's lives.

My father died when I was young, so I totally relate to your memories of 'something missing' growing up. Perhaps not so coincidentally, my husband's mother died when he was young. Without wanting to generalise, I believe this not only made us very involved parents, but our memories of childhood loss quite possibly made us more empathetic to our children's inner worlds.

This does not have to be reduced to a "men" against "women" debate....a subtext of many articles on "fatherhood". It saddens me that for many that is translated into "feminists", or "mothers" somehow wanting men and fathers to have less power.

My view - as a sole parent of two boys - and the child of divorced parents with "evil" step-father in the mix - is that modern relationships are very complex.

Often, we don't have the skills needed to tackle modern parenting - or even fulfilling the myriad of roles - as partners and providers - that we have to shoulder.

Poor relationship skills means the many challenges posed by our children and partners are fraught and exhausting.

Yet skills can be learned and practiced. Extra support for all concerned (not offered with a welfare mentality though!) is critical - and not only when the baby is new!

Sadly, many more friends are separating too.

My wish is that we learned the lessons of being human - and having good relationships - with far less loss and brutality - than is normally envoked with marriage/relationship breakdowns. Even when the parties set out with good intentions.

Authors such as Harriet Lerner - and Stephanie Dowrick - and Celia Lashlie's "He'll be OK - growing gorgeous boys into good men" offer good perspectives for men and women.

My view is it does take village to bring up children. Somehow we need to find ways to do that, in spite of the load modern mothers and fathers have to carry.

Ironically, Robert Putnam's social capital theories, and the acts of joining clubs and being involved with your community, offer hope even though the theory seemed based on hokey small town life in the USA (something I have experienced).

So, my message is: there is more than enough "work" and "attention" needed by today's children - and families - whatever their shape, for all to remember our joint humanity, and to see the peril in debates equating stronger relationships as fathers as necessarily meaning weaker relationships as mothers!

Another perspective on the role of fathers from the Melbourne Herald-Sun just before Father's Day.

Worth a read - and worth a thought about the many thousands of children for whom Father's Day is a real challenge.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,24289626-5000117,00.htm

Fatherhood - good. Thankfully most fathers are good and a positive force in their children's lives - and I note that indications are that younger men are doing great things in relationships with their children.

Thanks to those posters above who clarified the feminist
position.

I think what is scary is that many men who are simply anti-feminist are joining these groups that pose as family positive organizations, but the real agenda is to regain male control over women and children. That is, their priority is not the wellbeing of their children, with whom they were minimally involved before divorce anyway, but themselves - what they have lost; what they want; them, them and more about them.

This article and writer lost credibility with me when he lauded Warren Farrell.

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/farrell.htm

HRS: Read this all, if you have the courage:

http://www.xyonline.net/downloads/Supportingseparatedfath.doc

(If the link doesn't work I'll repost).

It's a scholarly article by Michael Flood.

Pynchme, it does not really help to be referecing gender warriors like Liz and Dr Flood. Farrell makes some good points and gets some stuff wrong, Liz seems to have made an industry of trying to discredit him without addressing the valid points he makes. I've got the view that he is taken out of context on some stuff and deliberately painted in the worst light as an excuse to ignore the valid points he does make.

Flood has majored in trying to keep the debate about DV genderised rather than getting at the causes. Flood has made some good points but has also in my view taken a very one sided approach to the issue and very clearly not being even handed. In the article you referenced he takes the same approach to the mens rights movement ignoring the very real help provided by some groups. I doubt that you will find a similar article by Flood attacking the mothers groups who all to often have played "the childrens interests" for the sake of mothers benefits.

Flood seems to assume that the only reasons that men are to do with the mens own failings. Having seen the gender bias which existed in the family law system first hand I'm quite confident that there are other reasons. I don't know how much has changed in the last few years but not that long ago it was in practice a very genderised system. There were also very few resources on official channels designed to help men understand the system in compasison to the resources specifically targetting women.

TBC

R0bert

Part 2

Mens rights groups were about the only place a male could go for help if it became obvious that an ex was intent on playing the system for her own benefit.

There have been excesses in some of those groups, some men have placed far to much blame on feminism and ignored the reality that maternal bias is a spin off from paternalism rather than feminism. Likewise many feminists have supported or turned a blind eye to gender bias. I assume thats out of a sense of solidarity or on the basis of assumptions about some men which may not apply. The men as child abuser dead beat dads who were not involved with their kids prior to seperation image that many such as Flood try to perpetuate.

As a father who has always played a very active role in my sons life and who tried to be fair and honest in his dealings with his ex and the family law system the assumptions that the system ran with was a nightmare in the face of someone who assumed that child residency and associated benefits were her right.

I'm hoping things have changed, in my experience with child care providers and others there has been a dramatic shift in recent times. The divides on this forum seem to have softened.

R0bert

Children do need both their mother and fathers and if we could come up with a system that works for the benefit of the children first it would go a long way to reduce the alienation that some men experience after divorce.

Trouble is no matter what the 'system' might come up with it won't stop the tensions, bitterness and rage that exist after some relationship breakdowns and this more than anything is what affects children the most.

Arthur N

You write as someone who thinks carefully and caringly about important matters and I am sure you will bring those characteristics into your parenting. You may not have had the benefit of a father but you know what qualities you would have liked in a father - someone to love you, spend time with you and who listens. If you do have children I am sure you will muddle on like the rest getting some bits right and making some mistakes.

Fatherhood to me is only natural, i couldn't think of any other way. But thats me. I know a female with 4 kids and 4 different fathers, and yet she doesn't seem anything out of the norm; Its just her way of life, I told her to record the family history before dementia moves in ......

sorry guys...but lot of these posts show a gross lack of understanding to the main issues involved...now its your duty to make yourself of 'street_smart_intelligence'...whos origin begins from a realization recognized thousands of years ago...and immortalized even in law...'Cross on Evidence'...legal evidence bible says...and judges expect...'no man\women women would declare anything against him\herself, unless it were true; but that every man\women, if he\she was in difficulty, or in the view to any difficulty, would make declaration for herself'...

for example hrs, what he said originates from past practice of family court which gave dominant power to mothers to achieve whatever they wanted...and to other side dk leland...almost living in a bubble of selected information for belief...to worse...knowing the facts and applying 'street_smart_intelligence' to deceive and hide them...

there is no right or wrong here...it all works...for each person...and their chosen approach...but its indeed a fool whom blind to all but whats fed/manipulated to them without any attempt to protect themselves in their own body space...a god given right...no one can take away...by applying 'street_smart_intelligence'...to get to the real facts/truth...offered and hidden...to make a choice of act...remembering that a 'balanced_outcome' for all is the standard at which each is judged from...any society grows...or dies if fails...just logical scotty...

for example...I say any man is a fool to believe a women who says she is faithful to him alone...its nature of women to explore/exploit their sexuality...and its nature of women to hide behind pre-conceived images for best survival in any situation...combine these two...and you get...yep...

men are blinded...either by genetics...or oppressed childhood upbringings...usually leading to 'unthinking income generators'...

so to fatherhood revolution...its origins are rooted in the above of simple truths of life...but from the posts it seems we men are still at kindergarten...

Sam

Sam I really didn't understand most of your post but this took me by surprise.

"for example...I say any man is a fool to believe a women who says she is faithful to him alone...its nature of women to explore/exploit their sexuality...and its nature of women to hide behind pre-conceived images for best survival in any situation...combine these two...and you get...yep..."

I am not sure how this is relevant. Are you implying that it is women's nature to be unfaithful and that all women are unfaithful? I suppose you think men don't cheat on their wives and they are as pure as the driven snow.

There are many women including myself that have never been unfaithful and it is insulting to be generalised about in this way.

“The Father's Day card ban has been introduced by schools in Glasgow, Edinburgh, East Renfrewshire, Dumfries and Galloway and Clackmannshire.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2176315/Father's-Day-cards-banned-in-Scottish-schools.html

I have heard of similar occurring in some Australian schools, although I don’t know the specific details of which schools are involved.

There has been at least one kindergarten that would not allow fathers to attend their children’s concert if the father was classed as “non-custodial”

If fathers do not strongly object, then banning fathers-day in schools will definitely become the norm. Removing reference to fathers from school curriculum will also become the norm.

That is simply how it will be.

Sam Said,
It will be extremely interesting to see the results of the Family Relationship centers. I have heard of no great change to Family courts, and no significant decline in the suicide rate of fathers.

HRS

You are very one-sided on issues of gender. There have also been bans on Mother's Day celebrations and cards in many Australian schools including the Primary School my children attended. It was changed to Carer's Day so as not to alienate any children who may not be cared for by biological parents such as fostered children and children in single parent homes, or where one parent might be a step-parent.

This is more the curse of political correctness than feminism.

Whatever happened to the private member's Bill in NSW to remove the word 'father' from birth certificates? Mother would become 'birth mother' and instead of father there would be 'Parents Present', the rationalisation being that it is who is in the relationship at the time that matters, not the biological parentage and the rights of lesbian IVF couples should count. This would be a departure from the traditional purpose of a birth certificate.

In fairness, if we are to forget biological origin, why have 'birth mother' when the generic 'Parents Present' could represent all with an 'ownership' interest.

It is surprising that last heard the Coalition was going for a conscience vote.

I cannot say I am in favour of the change.

R0bert

'Liz seems to have made an industry of trying to discredit [Warren Farrell] without addressing the valid points he makes.'

The issue that Liz addresses is an important one, because it indicates a great deal about where WF is coming from. His earlier published views on 'positive incest', I believe, underlie much of his later writings.

In WF’s universe, women are not unequal to men – they have simply manipulated society to make men their slaves and, in return, given men an illusion of power. This is very similar to the power relationship inherent in incest – i.e. the empowered party projecting a fake dominance on the disempowered party.

If he inspires you personally, then good luck. However, when it comes to gender politics gurus, I’d advise anyone to give him a wide berth. There is a lot of weird dark matter embedded in that thar psyche.

Also re Michael Flood ... I think he is wise to alert men to the fact that many father's rights support networks are really fronts for an adversarial New Right political agenda. If a man joins a FR group that appears more interested in gender warfare rather than gender equity, it would be a good idea for him to look elsewhere.

And how many times do you have to keep pushing your hobby horse about the Family Law system being gender-biased against men? I think that a social system that still expects women to continue as primary carers of children post-divorce – a situation that curtails a woman’s earning power, renders her partly cap-in-hand dependent on a usually hostile ex-spouse and fuels every misogynist belief that women are out to deprive men of their kids – is not exactly a female paradise.

Perhaps the supposed scarcity of divorce information available to men is more a reflection of their advantage, not their disadvantage.

Just adding to my post, I now believe this was covered poorly by the media and in fact the change will equalise some rights for children in these circumstances. Apparently too the proposal is now to have 'father' as optional, which changes things somewhat.

SJF: "I think that a social system that still expects women to continue as primary carers of children post-divorce – a situation that curtails a woman’s earning power, renders her partly cap-in-hand dependent on a usually hostile ex-spouse and fuels every misogynist belief that women are out to deprive men of their kids – is not exactly a female paradise."

Well said SJF

Anyone who thinks that women enjoy the rollercoaster of the adverserial system of family law really need a reality check.

Fact is, family law is not working to anyone's advantage, least of all the children. All it manages to achieve is the opportunity for disgruntled spouses of either sex to wage a campaign of revenge. Whoever indulges in this behaviour (male or female) has no right to call themselves a loving caring parent.

One of the goals of feminism was and still remains that fathers be engaged and involved with the care of their children. Shared responsibility. Not gender wars.

Lobby those at the top who maintain the system in its present state where it is open to exploitation by any who have a chip on their shoulder.

Pelican
If mothers are allowing mother’s day to be banned from schools then they are making a big mistake also. Children are being systematically removed from parents and raised by the state. There will be no variety in the population, and most people will become
little automatons who are owned and dictated to by the state.

It is a completely Marzist/feminist system, and a part of that system was to take the father from the children. This breaks the family unit, and the children are now more easily owned by the state.

It is all dressed up as “the best interests of the children”.

Everybody is aware of who their mother is, but the same cant be said for your father. 40% of children are born with the wrong fathers name on their birth certificate. Only DNA can tell, cos sure as hell ya missus wont.

Robert, SJF and Fractelle, great posts.

Posts by HRS and Jason show how far we as a society as a whole, both men and women, fathers and mothers, still have to go.

What makes a father Jason? Some matching DNA? Boys and girls need to prove first with their DNA that they are entitled to a male parenting role model? Luckily my husband didn't think so with my eldest son.

I liked the article, but found Marsh's comments conflating the ills of patriarchy, feminism and children weird. Surely he wouldn't want either his sons or his daughters growing up in a patriachal society? Feminism did much to dismantle patriarchy which restricts both women AND men. Just like a matriachal society would.

A campaign to highlight the importance of fathers in children's lives can only be good for children and men.

This was a thread ostensibly concerning positive fathering which posited fathers as caring and responsible: - mature people whose concern for children’s well-being supplanted the personal. Remarks like:

“I say any man is a fool to believe a women who says she is faithful to him alone...its nature of women to explore/exploit their sexuality...and its nature of women to hide behind pre-conceived images for best survival in any situation...combine these two...and you get...yep..” and

“40% of children are born with the wrong fathers name on their birth certificate. Only DNA can tell, cos sure as hell ya missus wont.”

certainly seem to prove we are pushing a boulder up a hill.

Do you truly consider that insulting, hurting and demeaning every single woman who posts on or reads this thread, along with our mothers, sisters and daughters; as well as the wives, mothers, sisters and daughters of every male poster, you’ll get people to agree with you?

Think we’re all gonna jump up and say “By god, you’re right. Women are the scum of the earth. I think I’ll go out and bash granny – the old slut deserves it?” or “Hey those two are a couple of sterling blokes. My mum must be an old whore!” You consider me, just because I am a woman, to be a slut and a whore? I find your gender immaterial -its your minds I consider contemptible.

Robert – "Demonised"? Farrell stands on public record as saying that incest is a positive thing from which “boys don’t seem to suffer – even from the negative experiences” and “incest is part of the family's open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection”

His advice to absent dads to make a mouse pad from a photo not as a souvenir but “That way he or she will be running their hands and eyes over it every day.” I find flesh-creeping.

I remain flummoxed as to why he is not only allowed to influence real fathers, but is defended by them. And you.

Anansi Surely a father is entitled to know wether he is biological or not . He must be given the chance to accept or decline. Wat you say is absolutely unforgivable; i don't know how you could live with yourself, being unsure of your eldests biological makeup.

Don't jump to stupid conclusions Olly. My eldest knows exactly who his biological father is, my first husband. His biological father was not into being a parent. That was my job as far as he was concerned. He had other more important things to do.

Like you he thinks biological fathers can 'accept or decline' being a father. Funny that.

It took a monumental amount of effort on my part to make sure he was at least part at some school events. Even those he generally managed to keep to a minimum.

Contributing some DNA matter does NOT make a father. It is only interesting from a genetics point of view.

My son is fortunate in that he has a father figure who is very proud of him, of all that he has achieved and his dreams for his future. He is a wonderful young man.

On another note, I'm going to have to do some research on Farrell. He sounds like a creep.

Robert - oh whoops. I really do apologise. I realise now you did not accuse Liz of demonising but of "discrediting" Farrell. Sorry.

Olly, I have never met "Anansi" in person but it never occurred to me for an instant to put the interpretation on her words that you immediately jumped to. Nasty stuff.

And I agree fully with her about DNA not making a father. My husband was also one who declined to be a father; but he also refused to divorce me. So unfortunately though my kids had their father living in the same house until we finally managed to get away, they also grew up without a Dad. He condemned us to a life of poverty and fear and cut them out of his will when he was dying simply to get back at me. Yet he continued to assert what a wonderful father he was to all and sundry. He just never mentioned how many times he had done the "I brought them into the world so I have the right to take them out of it" line on me when I failed to jump quick enough when he commanded me to.

So do I consequently consider all men are dead-beat dads and useless parents? Not at all. I just consider that HE was.

And as I have repeated time and again, neither my experiences nor those of any of the other sole parent mothers whom I got to know during those terrible times ever found the System privileged us in any way. If fact in each of our cases it was the father who prospered while we and the kids lived in poverty and squalor.

It's sexist nonsense to assert the system works solely for women. It's a stuff-up from start to finish for people of BOTH genders and desperately needs to be dismantled and started all over again. But this time with input from those it is supposed to be helping. (Do I really need to clarify that I mean not only people of BOTH genders, but the children as well?)

Romany, I get somewhat frustrated that comments which there is some dispute about by Farrell are used to discredit everything else he has said (much of which is very valid).

I've done some research into the stuff Farrell is attacked over and I get the impression that he was trying to put some of the hysteria into perspective. That he was providing a counterpoint to the extreme other side of that debate and didn't consider how his comments could be misused. I could be wrong but even so that does not negate the value of the bulk of what Farrell has say.

I suspect that those who want to portray men as the recipients of the benefits of an enormous gender power imbalance focus on that stuff and overplay it to avoid looking at what Farrell actually has to say about "male power".

I think we have a lot better chance of getting to a better world when people stop trying to see the world as a conspiracy by the other side. HRS's feminist being to blame for everything is as bad but no worse than the idea that men have set the world up to suit themselves.

R0bert

pelican wrote 'Are you implying that it is women's nature to be unfaithful and that all women are unfaithful?'

thats a good question, and I expect every reasoning man to have answered by himself ever before wanting to be a father, or for that matter getting into a relationship with a women...and part of the fathers revolution...

and to 'many women including myself that have never been unfaithful'...its the answer I expect from any women who is\ wants to continue a\the relationship with a man...whether its the truth/fact or not...its part of the 'survival' instinct which law recognized long ago...hope you understand that part now...

and I dont expect anyone to refuse/deny that they have know/experienced people creating acceptable social face and life...and...dark lifestyle protected with extreme care...and in my experience by numbers women have well developed skills set at this...and men developing particular counterskills to dealing with women is essential...agree?...part of the revolution...

and on...essentially its a world where person has skills set to effectively deal with all that exists in the world of people and dealing with them...and so effectively keep/secure their body space and in relationships find what they thought/expected becomes more often the fact in the relatoiship...or not getting into a relationship as the preferred option for ones abilities...so surrogate laws needed to allow men to have children...

Sam
Ps~nothing worse that a family breakup...with good father removed from child...to a man...so lets get smarter guys...first wake up...we need to create more choices for us than what currently available...learn from what women as a organized group have effectively achieved for their self-benefit and expanded their available choices...

Anansie Biological make up surely does make a father. You can't escape the facts. Of course men will be a father figure to children they know not to be theirs. [A defacto father] You said you were glad your husband did not ask :: It is very important to men knowing they are the bioligical parent, if there is any doubt at all it will never go away. A lot of the reason behind devorce cases i suspect.

Anansie,
“Feminism did much to dismantle patriarchy which restricts both women AND men.”

It has all been political hasn’t it. The belief that removing fathers from families is good for children, and good for society, because fathers are evil and “patriarchal”

Amazingly, this was actually taught in universities, but it was mostly taught by people who didn’t have any children. (eg the Germaine Greers). It is still being taught in UK universities, where 1 in 4 children are being raised in a lone parent household, and Australia is becoming very similar.

The Marxist/feminist experiment of mass abortion, mass divorce and mass abduction of children from fathers is failing. Societies that have indulged in that experiment are now having so few children, that they are being taken over by other societies that don’t believe in mass abortion, mass divorce and the mass abduction of children from fathers.

Warwick Marsh
Our current society classifies parents as being “custodial or “non-custodial”. This is a system similar to apartheid, and in that system, 90% of non-custodial parents are fathers, (although I think that feminists are becoming concerned, because in the future, more non-custodial parents could be mothers).

I think that the most immediate goal should be the removal from legislation of the terms “custodial” and “non-custodial”, and replacing them with the terms “mother” and “father”.

This has to be done before both motherhood and fatherhood are destroyed, or our society is simply taken over by societies that do believe in motherhood and fatherhood.

Pynchme: "a scholarly article by Michael Flood"

hahaha, for a second I thought you were serious. This is the "sociologist" who has made a career of being "pro-feminist", as he put it on his staff page when he was at Latrobe Uni. The only relationship between his work and scholarship is that both consist of words.

The article was all about fathers being part of their childrens' lives and the positive point that social norms are adjusting to a wider acceptance of fathers as important parents. For a while there it was looking like the pressure on fathers was never going to be let up.

I can't see anything in the article to justify the sorts of diatribes I've seen from some in this thread. Is it so passion-inflaming to suggest fathers are a good thing to have around?

The various authors he quotes have their closet-skeletons, but no more so that others writing from different perspectives. Leaving aside those distractions, they also have sound observations to make. The article demonstrates that those observations have been influential in helping to bring about the social changes that are occurring. Shooting the messenger doesn't change the message.

SJF, " is not exactly a female paradise. "

You are playing a strawman argument here. I've never suggested this is a female paradise but prime care of childen post divorce is something which some people fight dammed hard to get. That can be for a variety of reasons including how they see themselves, how they see their ex, the difference between benefits and having to support themselves and the remote possibility that the family assets which go along with child residency might impact on some peoples behaviour.

It does not have to be a paradise for some people to lie and cheat to get it, it does not have to be a paradise for others to support someones quest for it.

To often this debate is played as if prime care is something that is almost always forced on people and that the standard model is selfless mum and disinterested dad who only wants the kids to minimise the financial impacts on himself. The reality is much more complex than that.

As for how often I'll post my views on this, at this stage as often as it takes. While people still prmote the nasty idea that the only reason men would become involved in a mens group is to maintain control over others I think that there is a need.

My experience of the family law system is of one which did not care about truth. Of Relationships Australia, an organisation which does not even try to appear neutral. Of CSA, an organisation mostly interested in maximising the money that changes hands to make it's own KPI's look better but which also considers males to be more responsible for their childs financial needs than it considers women.

R0bert

Men who are dads prolly dont need the glib sort of standard validation doled out by the PC media and its latest fashion of hidden agenda. Methinks this is a case of the 'man shortage' morphing into the 'daddy shortage.'

Cast fathers in an unusually favourable light and men might by enticed back toward traditional roles. Doubtful, as it looks sus. Men have been witholding. Its pretty obvious.

This fathers day, the change in sentiment was very stark. A complete 180 degree change. This alone is cause for skepticism.

Robert -
When you say "Too often…etc" where exactly do you mean? In the media? Well that may be so, but the media portrays single mothers equally negatively. Its agenda seems to be to marginalize anyone who is underprivileged.

But if you mean on the Forum, see that’s where I have a problem.

Many posters maintain that ALL gender debates are a variation of "woman good – men bad". But in all fairness perusal of these threads does not support this view.

I have stated categorically that I am not of that opinion and so have all the most vociferous female posters on here. Even those who don’t post often have made an effort to record that they love the men in their lives and certainly don’t harbour feelings of hostility towards an entire gender. Many who have been treated badly also make the difference between the feelings they harbour towards a single male and the entire male sex.

"While people still promote the nasty idea…..." again, who here is doing so? The important modifier "some" has played a pivotal part in every discussion – including those of Flood – about men’s groups I have read.

We agree there are radical female groups out there and distance ourselves from them. But I don't hear the corrollory that there are radical "Nazi" men’s groups admitted.

My personal experiences also showed me the family law system doesn’t care about truth. I have always pointed out how unfair the system is. Neither it nor the two women’s groups I went to could give me any practical help at all. It was Community groups comprising all genders and all denominations – and who also agree about the uselessness of the government systems - which offered the only practical help I ever got.

So we are going to have to agree to differ. As long as you continue to point out how biased the system is towards Dads, I will continue to underline its unfairness to ALL and recommend across-the-board community involvement rather than gendered reform.

Romany:"We agree there are radical female groups out there and distance ourselves from them"

Which ones?

Romany:"I don't hear the corrollory that there are radical "Nazi" men’s groups admitted."

Which ones?

Romany:"The important modifier "some" has played a pivotal part in every discussion – including those of Flood – about men’s groups I have read. "

Please point out anything by Flood that has anything good to say about men's groups, especially those organised around the rights of fathers. If he uses the modifier "some" it is purely to put a pseudo-impartial gloss on what is essentially gender hate-literature.

As an aside, it's interesting that Flood has had little to say since the birth of his son...

Romany:"As long as you continue to point out how biased the system is towards Dads, I will continue to underline its unfairness to ALL"

All well and good, but responding generally to specific complaints is not helpful. Think of it this way: someone says "women are underpaid because men doing the same work get paid more" (a specific complaint) and someone else responds: "we all need to be paid more" (a general response). Does the second have anything to offer the first, or is the response essentially a non-sequitur? I say the latter and that at worst, this type of response is specifically designesd to obfuscate the issues at hand.

Perhaps one of the problems with having many single-parent families in a society, is that we become accepting of this as the norm, without acknowledging the tremendous hardship this places on the parent and the effort that goes into trying to be both "mother" and "father" (having to do at least some things that would traditionally be done by the opposite sex). I and my sisters grew up without a mother, in a single-parent household. I did go through a phase of hating Mother's Day, and was tempted several years to nominate dad as Mother of the Year. However, to see such a celebration phased out to appease my hurt is only to impose on everyone else. And down the track I see it as part of learning to fit into society, where not everyone is bending over backwards to appease you as a person. I do think however, I gained a better appreciation of my father from the constant remarks about how well he did with his "girls", and acknowledgment of the effort that he put in. Perhaps those from single-mother families would also benefit from the recognition of the extra burden placed on their parent. Further, whilst there have been times since I became a parent myself that I would REALLY have loved to have mum's input and advice, ultimately its made me appreciate just how much effort my dad put in, and it hasnt impacted on my ability to be an effectiv parent (so no cop-outs for boys raised solely by their mothers - they can still be effective fathers themselves).

Romany, my "To often" was in relation to SJF's earlier comment ending in the bit about a female paradise. I've also seen plenty of comments over time in a similar vein and others regarding nobody making a fortune from child benefits. Some on this site, others in the media.

I agree single mums do sometimes cop a caning in the media (and sometimes on this site).

My earlier posts were prompted by the reference to Liz's attacks on Farrell and Flood's attacks on the mens movement. Please read them in context with that, I'm not trying to add to the gender wars but neither do I wish to meekly accept SJF's suggestion that "Perhaps the supposed scarcity of divorce information available to men is more a reflection of their advantage, not their disadvantage."

R0bert

Robert,

Yeah, o.k., you are the last person I want to get into a dispute with. But I have a valid question. Why does Flood get up your nose so much? I have read a lot of his stuff and it seems pretty balanced.

You mention his "attacks" on mens clubs - but he doesn't indiscriminately attack: he reserves that for for the ones that, as I mentioned before, are the equivalent of those radical feminist groups: the gender bashers.

I have logged on to a couple of those in the past as some of the male posters here have provided links to them...and they are abominable. I can't see why such a reasonable person as you are objects to warnings about them? Recently divorced men are every bit as vulnerable as recently divorced women and a real danger exists that anyone who falls into one of the radical groups that exist for both men and women will never heal and will scar their children, surely?

And the Farrell person. I find it incomprehensible that you, of all people - and especially as the father of two boys - would defend someone like that?

You still haven't said how you could possibly overlook his views on incest which you say are balanced by his other views? You didn't comment on either of the quotes I gave earlier but I can't see how one could turn a blind eye to them. The guy is not a psychologist, nor has he any qualifications in childcare/parenting either formal or informal, being childless himself. There are a plethora of wonderful books around written by qualified men - it was Modern Paradox I think who cited a recent one. What insights could someone who condones paedophilia possibly give that are more valuable?

Not stirring here, just curious, is all.

Romany, I've read a fair bit of Floods stuff and he has most definately not given me the impression that he takes a balanced approach to gender issues. He seems to go out of his way to find fault with issues raised by the mens movement but I've not seen any similar critique of the mums groups. He has published material attacking CTS but I've not found similar critique from him addressing the genderised approach to the DV stats he seems to support.

The mens/fathers rights groups play an important role but Flood seeks to portray them in a much more negative light than I believe is fair.
He mentions the possibility of some good but consistantly counters with a negative.

My view is they save a lot of lives. They provide some support when often all other support is gone or at risk of being overused. They provide access to resources which are not (or were not) widely available to fathers otherwise. They provide some hope when in many other ways hope is gone, some help in taking the long view rather than just being overwhelmed by whats happened already.

Flood has said some worthwhile stuff, there are risks associated with long term involvement in advocacy groups - I'm not currently a member of a fathers group because I don't think it would be good for me long term but in the short term it was invaluable.

As for Farrell my own readings of what he has said and what others say about him leave me with the impression that there is a large disparity between the two. Comments appear to have been taken out of context to portray him as a child abuse supporter but my impression is that he has tried to provide a moderate voice in what is generally a discussion of extremes, never an easy task.

I could be wrong about that, the whole issue is emotive and hard to find anything which looks like independant commentary on it.

R0bert

R0bert

You keep twisting my argument about the level of social expectation on women to be the primary carers of children. You seem to insist that I am subscribing to the common portrayal of women as ‘selfless’.

Quite the opposite. Women who take primary care of children because of social expectation are not practising ‘selflessness’ – they are simply conforming to what society expects of them. (In this sense, it could actually be viewed as selfishness.)

Also, in your comments to Romany, I notice you make some references to me on the subject of Warren Farrell, yet continue to sidestep the main criticism I made regarding an undercurrent throughout his writing that women enslave men while giving them an illusion of power.

trade 215

‘Methinks this is a case of the 'man shortage' morphing into the 'daddy shortage.'

I fully agree. In the 80s, women were intimidated into believing that they would have a better chance of being shot by a terrorist than getting married after the age of 35. Similar odds are now being applied to kids growing up well-adjusted in fatherless homes.

Romany

‘… there are radical female groups out there and [we] distance ourselves from them.’

I’d be amazed if there actually are still radical female groups out there – if there ever were to start with. What little support or political advocacy for women has survived the Howard government’s death by a thousand funding cuts is hopelessly overburdened, overstressed and underfinanced.

There has always been a lot of pressure on women to ‘distance’ ourselves from other women who are deemed ‘radical’. But what exactly is ‘radical’? In the 60s and 70s, society’s attitude to women was still so repressive that virtually every social change women proposed (like equal pay and rape law reform) was deemed radical. Yet by today’s standards these are no longer radical at all.

Also, the term ‘radical’ often gets interchanged with extremism. Yet the former is a political term - i.e. radicals believe in changing the current system of power – while the latter is a behavioural term.

But by whose standards do we judge extremist female behaviour? For example, I have been accused of extremism on OLO simply for using the term ‘patriarchy’ or for suggesting that women will never achieve equality by being nice

It is always curious to me why validating and supporting the role of fathers always slides into the post-separation context and villifies women/government/courts as persecutors of fathers. Why don't we give as much attention to fathers' activities when parents are together? Time use data from the ABS clearly show that mothers overwhelmingly provide direct care in couple families but this is not problematised unless parents separate. Men's working lives often constrain their availability to provide direct care, we don't have paid maternity or paternity leave (and in countries that do, they have had to find ways to encourage men to take it) so why aren't fathers' advocacy groups out there demanding equal pay for women, so fathers aren't driven by higher earning capacity to be the main breadwinner all the time; where are their demands for paid paternity leave?; where are their demands for all parents of infants to have the right to request part-time work? These measures would actually address men's availability to undertake unpaid parenting duties in the laundry, the kitchen, the shopping centre with their children. Instead these groups tend to just villify separated mothers - misdirected effort really.

Romany, SJF,

I see huge contradiction here. Robert here is being encouraged to denounce Farrell, and reject anything he has to say, for a few radical comments Farrell has made.

For a start, I think your saint Germaine has made a few radical comments in her time. She's very interested in little boys too.

Secondly, then SJF states 'There has always been a lot of pressure on women to ‘distance’ ourselves from other women who are deemed ‘radical’'

All the distancing I see on OLO is voluntary and enthusiastic. Whenever someone points out a radial comment by a feminist, said feminist is said to be radical by all the feminist posters. That's not feminism is the cry, she's just a radical and nothing to do with my beliefs.

The use of the word Patriachy in this day and age is a fair indication of a radical feminist. It's an attempt to position any argument in the framework of men always being in the more powerful position than women. People using his world are usually the types that would have you believe that every relationship pre-feminism was an entrapment of the powerless woman by a powerful man.

Anyone who has talked to old married couples will see pretty quickly this is pure propaganda. Sure women were trapped in bad marriages and that's when an unequal power relationship was terrible for women, but feminism promotes this as the norm, and denies the many relationships where the woman really wore the pants. SJF also only ever deals in overt power, and relates any suggestion of emotional or maternal, or decision making power in a relationship women may hold (Farrel) as equivalent to projecting a fake dominance

cont..

...
Feminists, and the government funding provided to them rely on maintaing the illusion that women are victims in need of help, and always have less power than men. The closer we get to gender equity, the more you hear from feminists the phrase 'we've still got a long way to go'

This statement is really an expression of fear that people will notice that there really isn't a long way to go, and that all the affirmitive action and government departments for women are becoming redundant or even represent an inequality for men.

It is fabulous to watch men position themselves as experts on defining and identifying feminism and being able to quote the intentions, thoughts and attitudes of feminists (typically in derogatory terms). It's almost as if these men are speaking for women, bless them, knowing what's best for women and how to lead discussion of feminism in society. We are so lucky, so very very lucky, to have men like these being able to tell feminsts and other women what they think, say and do, otherwise we wouldn't know.

Robert, thanks for taking the time out to explain where you're coming from.

Antiseptic and U Suss,
My remarks were clearly and directly aimed at Robert - did you somehow miss that? I was/am interested in his opinions because

a) we go back a long way on OLO
b)he does not use personal vilification as a debating tool when he runs out of argument
c) he appears to weigh and consider information that comes his way
d)he actually reads the contents of all the posts on threads. Oh and
e) We respect each others viewpoints even when we disagree.

Antiseptic admits he has anger management problems, advocates agression (yes. If you force me to I CAN bore myself senseless by rummaging through his history to find the places he has done this)and loses control in debates... while U Suss admits he often says things just to get a reaction, likes to stir things up (can give chapter and verse on that too)and then sulks and threatens to leave when people respond.

Why on earth would I be interested in directing queries or comment at either of you? Let alone indulging in your games.

SJF - I've been living in China for the past 3 years so I don't know if there are currently radical feminist groups or not in Oz. I had just assummed they exist because of the frequency with which we are told "Feminists say...", "Women think...", "Feminnazi's demand..." followed by the most outrageous and contentious garbage which neither I nor any other women here have ever heard uttered.

Just assummed therefore that the country was riddled with festering covens of rabid women giving public utterance in large groups to these sentiments.

Quite incredible. Here is an article about fatherhood and a number of men take this opportunity to once again vilify women, whether mothers or not.

In my grandmothers generation, fathers were not at all involved with any women's work, like taking care of the children. In my mother's generation, fathers were mostly very little involved in any parenting. In my generation that started to change, but was still very much up to the individual man.

What I see is, that in my children's generation there is a lot of participation by fathers.

The conspiracy theorists opinions about father participation has nothing to do with men-hating women undermining fathers. Fathers are participating in their children's lives more than ever in history, because of changing expectations.

Could feminism be congratulated for challenging all society's established roles for men and women and therefore freeing men to become actively participating parents without ridicule?

I for one think so. It wasn't so long ago that it was seen as rather suspect when a man wanted to engage in any kind of nurturing or caring role or career voluntarily

Romany, you are most welcome. I hope that I've explained it clearly enough.

I have to admit in the case of a couple of fundies I make an exception of "he does not use personal vilification as a debating tool when he runs out of argument" and occasioanlly I cross the line with others although I hope thats more when I reach the point of recognising that the arguments are pointless.

Usual Suspect I'm a bit distressed to find that I'm probably a radical feminist ;) I tend to think a significant factor in maternal bias is patriachal more so than fenminism and have said so on a number of occasions - outed myself apparently.

SJF, I'm not trying to twist your arguments but the "female paradise" part seems to suggest that you are trying to negate the idea that prime (or exclusive) care is something often sought by women and that it's not always about the childs best interests. There is no suggestion that prime care is a paradise but it is something that is sought by some with great intensity and thrust upon others.

R0bert

Romany:"Antiseptic admits he has anger management problems, advocates agression (yes. If you force me to I CAN bore myself senseless by rummaging through his history to find the places he has done this"

No to both. Now, I'm calling your bluff - go and find where I have "advocated aggression". When you can't, come back and admit you're a lightweight liar. While you're at it, perhaps you can tell us which "radical" women's groups you "distance yourself from" and which men's groups are "nazi" as you claimed. It's interesting that you can take the time to have a swipe yet you can't provide the answers to 2 simple questions about a statement you made.

In fact, I have not initiated any form of aggresssive action either here or in the fight to prevent my ex's lies being used to "justify" my children being kept from me. I certainly do not advoctate standing idly by while people take their best shot at me, however. It seems you would like to class that as "anger management" problems, since you obviously prefer the sneaking attack from behind to the honest face-to-face discussion.

I find it fascinating that so many women are obviously so threatened by the thought that fathers may be valued as fathers, not just as cash-cows. I guess when you've regarded the children as your own special meal-ticket for so long, it must be hard to have to stand on your own two feet.

Antiseptic: "I find it fascinating that so many women are obviously so threatened by the thought that fathers may be valued as fathers, not just as cash-cows."

Who are these women? I'd like to know so I can avoid them, they sound like parasites to me. Please provide details about these scheming hussies, so that I may point them out to others as examples of people who manipulate systems to suit themselves. Antiseptic is not at all aggressive, nor does he treat women as a single homogeneous group, knowing that women are as every bit as individual as men.

It is such a relief to know from reading these pages that all men are fantastic fathers and have never manipulated their partners or the Family Law system.

What was the topic about.... fatherhood. Love seeing dads with their kids; at the supermarket, at concerts, really getting involved in their children's lives. I wasn't so lucky, my father went to work, drank with his mates, stumbled home after my bed-time. So I missed out on all the wonderful fathering that is happening these days. When I was a kid a man's man was considered to be one who avoided their wives and children as much as possible.

Now, I am acutely aware of the increase in parenting by many fathers these days. What a shame that both men and women are not more supported by our nation in raising the next generation by family friendly workplaces, parental leave, affordable schooling - all the necessities for human well-being.

Instead all we ever hear about is how bad one gender is compared to the other.

Men get short shrift on custody arrangements and any woman who dares to stick her head up and say that she believes in equal rights, because she wants her daughters to have the same opportunities as her sons, is immediately tarnished as an 'uber-feminist', I guess we have eradicated the 'femi-nazi', thank goodness. So I will keep an eye for those uber-fems, they sound really scary. How I do I recognise them, do they carry Uzis?

Fractelle, you're not one of the women I was referring to, although you do tend to become a bit hysterical in defending "the sisterhood".

An example: "It is such a relief to know from reading these pages that all men are fantastic fathers and have never manipulated their partners or the Family Law system."

No one except the odd nutter makes such a claim. The feminist side of this discussion, however, is quite happy to make the claim that "all men are bastards" while using the most extreme examples to tar the rest. It's not much fun being lumped in with extremists, is it, Fractelle?

Fractelle:"any woman who dares to stick her head up and say that she believes in equal rights, because she wants her daughters to have the same opportunities as her sons, is immediately tarnished as an 'uber-feminist'"

Not by me. I have both a daughter and a son and whilst I'm satisfied that my daughter has a rosy future doing whatever she may want to do, I don't see the same for my son if the "uber-feminists" who want to run things get their way. I thought that Warwick Marsh's article offered some hope that this may be self-correcting, but the response of otherwise sensible women to it, including your own effort, makes it clear that men have a long, hard way to go in the feminised world we are creating. As long as women like you choose to identify with the power-hungry, those people will endeavour to further polarise the discussion for their own ends. After all it makes for easy rhetoric, doesn't it?

Antiseptic: "As long as women like you choose to identify with the power-hungry..."

Now you're confusing me with Col Rouge.

I'm the one who wished she could've had more time with her daddy.

But, hey, why waste time on the topic when you can spend it denigrating any woman who dares to express an opinion? Any opinion it seems.

Antiseptic, sooooo true thank you.

There are just so many men who know what you say is the truth simply because they experience it every day.

Any man who dares to stick his head up & say that he believes in equal rights because he wants his sons to have the same opportunities as his daughter is immediately tarnished as a 'Woman Hater'

mog,

That's an interesting comment given that your previous post was telling us all about what fathers' advocacy groups should and shouldn't be doing.

Romany,

What a load of unnecessary vitriol you've come up with. Comment or don't, your response isn't that important to me.

I will continue to reply to you because

a) I don't think I am better than you, or that my opinion is better or more valuable than yours.
b) I accept your comments at face value, and don't reject everything you have to say based on some weird preconception.
c) I accept that you reserve the right to comment on posts not addressed to you, but castigate
anyone who dares to do the same.

'admits he often says things just to get a reaction'
Rubbish

'threatens to leave when people respond'
Twice, when being personally attacked. Once so badly Graham deleted the posts on his own volition without any request to do so.

Fact is, you want Robert to denounce all an author has to say because of a few controversial
remarks, but don't apply the same standards to yourself. Go on, denounce Germaine and
everything she has ever had to say because of her comments about and pornography of young boys
before you tell Robert to do the same.

If I had the time or inclination of Steel or someone like that, I could give you all the
published 'outrageous and contentious garbage' from feminists which you say you have never
heard uttered.

Fractelle, Anansi,

Actually I reject the premise of this article. 'more involved, committed and responsible
fathers.'. It's basically a backhanded way of saying before this 'revolution', fathers were just not committed or responsible. Imagine if we talked about a motherhood revolution, where mothers are patronisingly praised for their efforts in the workplace. These new women are now finally committed and responsible enough to aid in providing financially for their children.

I'd like the author to go and say to his father, 'I'm a better father than you, and I'm plainly more commited and responsible than you ever were.'. Pretty offensive really.

Usual Suspect I'll leave most of you comments to Romany for you two to soft out but do want to point out that my impression is that Romany is seeking to understand my approach more than trying to pressure me to change.

Obviously we started with a different understanding and masy still have one but I've not felt inappropriate pressure.

SJF, sorry I didn't follow up previously on your comment re the themes running through Farrell's book. I agree that there is an element of that, it's not something I took on board nor did it seem particularly prevelant to me. I was much more interested in his points about the perception of male power and how most men have actually lived. I'm having a think about the point you have made and seeing how that fits for me. If you are correct then it's an important point just as the underlying assumptions other authors bring to their work is important when determining how seriously to take them.

R0bert

Anansi

‘Here is an article about fatherhood and a number of men take this opportunity to once again vilify women, whether mothers or not.’

I notice from your posting history that you are a relative newbie to OLO (and have made some good points). After a while, you’ll see (if you haven't already) that this behaviour is standard practice on OLO gender threads. To look on the positive side, however, these threads do provide a good reality check on what women are still up against.

Mog

‘Why don't we give as much attention to fathers' activities when parents are together…’

I just want to say that I thought the overall post this quote came in was excellent.

I too find it interesting that, in an essay supposedly about fatherhood, there was not a single mention of men’s increasingly long work hours, mounting career pressures, lack of paternity leave, decreasing parental quality time, low professional childcare standards and pay, or traditional pressures on women (rather than men) to be primary carers.

Instead, we got more of the usual rallying cry to ‘renew’ men's masculinity and despise fatherless households. Sad.

R0bert

‘... the "female paradise" part [of your argument] seems to suggest that you are trying to negate the idea that prime (or exclusive) care is something often sought by women and that it's not always about the childs best interests.’

‘Negate the idea’? No. That idea WAS my point. And to continue the same logic … The fact that so many women seek prime care is not always about the woman’s best interests either.

Fractelle:"I'm the one who wished she could've had more time with her daddy."

Which is why I didn't include you in my comment about the women who seem threatened by any effort to suggest fathers may be entitled to similar parental rights and obligations to mothers.

On the other hand, there have been a majority of women who have reacted very defensively to this article and even more so to the quoted references. The reaction seems excessive to me, given the topic, but there you go.

Fractelle:"you're confusing me with Col Rouge"

Never let it be said!. You're interesting to read, funny and rational.

Antiseptic:

"Fractelle:"you're confusing me with Col Rouge"

Never let it be said!. You're interesting to read, funny and rational."

Aw, shucks. Picture instant transformation from Artemis into Aphrodite.

Perhaps we can just all try to be a little less prickly, those female posters you mention - all adore the men in their lives and wouldn't be without them.

How do I know? Well, I am a goddess - we know this stuff.

Fractelle

[Antiseptic to you]: 'Which is why I didn't include you in my comment about the women who seem threatened by any effort to suggest fathers may be entitled to similar parental rights and obligations to mothers.'

Tee-hee-hee...

If you look back to my previous comment to you re women being subtly and not so subtly pressured to distance themselves from supposed radical and extremist women, this offering from Antiseptic is a classic example of this kind of divide-and-rule, neo-Madonna/whore humbug. In addition, the sugar-coated sweetness of the first half of the statement is designed to disguise the outrageous falsehood of the second half.

By all means, enjoy his compliment, but take heed of its underlying manipulation.

R0bert

Just a quick clarification. I notice that my last reference to you re Warren Farrell is a bit misleading. I didn't mean to say that WF believes women enslave men; I meant to say that his writing has an undercurrent that men are enslaved by a system designed to benefit women. Because I was making a rushed reference back to a previous comment I made, I resorted to a shorthand version, which ended up misrepresenting my original comment.

SJF,

Would that be the same kind of subtle pressure that yourself and Romany are using on Robert to distance himself from Farrel?

SJF, "I meant to say that his writing has an undercurrent that men are enslaved by a system designed to benefit women"

My impression was more of social systems designed to perpetuate the species and benefit those at the top of the heap and that Farrell's emphasis's are countering the idea of a social system designed to benefit men.

Like everything there were exceptions in both directions. I took it that Farrell was saying most men have not had privilige and power, rather they have been treated as expendable because their biological function is different to that of women in terms of perpetuating the species.

Perhaps that's a reflection of my own preconceptions in reading his material but it's the theme I took from the book.

R0bert

Antiseptic:<The feminist side of this discussion, however, is quite happy to make the claim that "all men are bastards" while using the most extreme examples to tar the rest.> Call me simple, but aren’t you doing precisely that towards women or feminists? Anyway, name ONE feminist or any poster, who has done just that.

DVD: <Any man who dares to stick his head up & say that he believes in equal rights because he wants his sons to have the same opportunities as his daughter is immediately tarnished as a 'Woman Hater'> Really? You’d be surprised how many feminists have sons, lovers, husbands and even fathers. Yes, we all have fathers.

As SJF pointed out, there is no call for parenting leave, or making it easier for men to fit work around family. Indeed, women are constantly berated for ‘wanting it all’; career and children. That is because society still very much expects the mother to be the primary care giver and devote all her time to raising the children. Indeed, if a mother were to agree with a father being the primary care giver, see the knives come out. There would always have to be ‘a reason’. She’s got other ‘serious problems’, she doesn’t care for her kids, etc.

Mothers have to fit the Madonna mold for many. This by the way is not directed at men only, but women as well.

It is in the child’s best interest to have BOTH parents care and participate in parenting. It is high time for men to ‘want it all’: Career and children and demand changes in our working culture. It’s still soooo last century.

Robert is very articulate in expressing his views and interpretation. What I think would be interesting to examine is how one perceives a text on gender based on the gender of the reader. That to me seems to be more or less the debate that is happening between Robert and Romany and SJF.

Anansi, I suspect that it's more to do with the preconceptions of the reader than their gender. Gender may come into it but if there is room to interpret themes and subtexts we will do so according to existing views of the material and or author. We can try our best to see the issue from other viewpoints but it's never going to be easy.

R0bert

Anansi:"Call me simple, but aren’t you doing precisely that towards women or feminists"

You're wrong. I try very hard to dissociate the extremists from the "ordinary" woman who simply wants to get on with her life. It still amazes me that so many are incapable of reading what is written and understanding perfectly simple english. I've answered this same accustion in innumerable threads.

Anansi:"name ONE feminist or any poster, who has done just that."

Romany, in her recent diatribe; SJF, in pretty much everything she writes here; Eva Cox, in all of her outpourings; Elspeth McInnes, ditto. I could go on, but I don't think you really wanted an answer, did you?

Anansi:"It is high time for men to ‘want it all’: Career and children and demand changes in our working culture."

Men don't "want it all", that's a feminist goal. Men simply want a fair shot at having what they earn, both in monetary terms and in terms of the respect of their family and community. At present there is a constant assault on the respect due to men, with the worst examples being used to justify all sorts of assumptions about the intentions of the average man. Even the Sex Discrimination Commissioner admits she has little power to investigate gender-discrimination claims if a man is the victim, which is a very clear example of the way the system actively promotes a view of men as second-class citizens.

I do agree with you, however, that men should be demanding a fairer work-life balance for all. I suspect that many simply accept the status quo out of a sense of inevitability. It's hard to "fight city hall", after all.

"I do agree with you, however, that men should be demanding a fairer work-life balance for all. I suspect that many simply accept the status quo out of a sense of inevitability. It's hard to "fight city hall", after all."

Well about bloody time. Lets get organised - together.

I have had a gutful of this blame game, which only serves to divide and conquer. Women are not the enemy it is the minority of those at the top who are adept at keeping the average person from a fair, family friendly and equitable working life.

I don't deny that men are discriminated against, but the 'elephant in the room' is that it is by, primarily, other men.

R0bert

(Not meaning to be adversarial on following points ... just adding to the debate.)

‘I took it that Farrell was saying most men have not had privilige and power, rather they have been treated as expendable because their biological function is different to that of women in terms of perpetuating the species.’

Yes. This is Farrell’s ‘myth of male power’. That is, men do all the work and take all the risks, while all women have to do is bear and raise their children safe in the protected little cocoon men have built for them. The lower down the social scale, the more men are enslaved and exploited by this female-friendly system.

Privilege and expendability are two sides of the one coin. I agree that men are treated as expendable. However, I disagree that it is because they have a different biological function in perpetuating the species. Rather, it is because men’s superior physical strength has given them an edge over women in perpetuating the dominator social order that has been in place for about 6,000 years.

Also, Farrell ignores the fact that in the traditional sense, men have had less privilege and power than men above them in the pecking order, but AT ALL LEVELS of society men have had privilege and power over women. Within the context of their own domestic realm and in their own local community, ordinary men traditionally had more power and privilege than the most high-born of women.

If perpetuating the species is so valued, then our society has a funny way of showing it. Bearing and raising children has always been given a very low social status. Even today, it’s not even included in the census as ‘real’ work. Also, just look at the ridiculous amount of cultural space that most societies give to men who have fought and died in the service of their country (i.e. establishing and re-establishing dominance) – compared to the virtual zero cultural space allotted to the hundreds of millions of women over the centuries who have died in the service of giving birth.

Anansi

‘What I think would be interesting to examine is how one perceives a text on gender based on the gender of the reader.’

A bit like how one perceives a text on race based on the race of the reader. Or a text on history based on the nationality of the reader. Or a text on class based on the class of the reader.

Those who belong to the dominant race, nationality or class will bring to the text the perspective of an ‘insider’, while those of the dominated race, nationality or class will bring to the text the perspective of an ‘outsider’. Usually it’s the insider perspective that sets the tone and rules of the ensuing debate.

Even a book on women, written by women for women, will still be judged according to the values of the wider society - which remain predominantly male-centric.

SJF, we could go on for a long time putting our perceptions of that issue - could be interesting.

I agree with parts of what you said and disagree with others. That may be about how we interpret dominance and how negative your views are of mens motivations or how much role you think women have had in creating our history.

Those who dominate don't normally give their lives to protect the dominated, they don't normally get trained to stand when the dominated enters the room or when seats are in short supply. The dominators don't ensure that the dominated get a spot in the liferaft when the ship goes down if it's at the cost of their own lives.

I think there are aspects where women have been treated as less responsible, less capable and less grown up than men. In some ways treated as children (not quite but it's the best fit I can think of).

Rather than a plot by men to dominate women I see it as roles which have been created and supported by men and women because it was the best they knew how to do at the time. Some parts have also been influenced/perpetuated by religious dogma but thats a whole other discussion. Changed technology has allowed us to loosen those roles, to reduce some of the risks and increase others.

We have scope to do better but insisting on seeing historical differences between the genders in terms of dominance and power creates the risk of fresh harms, fresh imposed limitations where they don't exist and further grief.

R0bert

R0bert

Many women have given their lives to protect others, in many times of crisis - bravery IS NOT the preserve of men.

Courtesy works both ways, for example I open a door for others if I reach a door first, or give up my seat to elderly, disabled or clearly pregnant women.

I don't think anyone stands when "the dominated" enter a room anymore, besides isn't that type of behaviour part of treating women as children? I would feel absurd if men stood up every time I entered a room. I would much rather have my opinions treated with respect than be treated like some kind of freak. And considering just how infantilised women have been for eons, haven't we made fantastic progress from cosseted pets to independent, competent contributing members of society?

Having experienced 'physical domination' first hand and had my experiences trivialised by males as have other women when recounting their experience on this forum is a further example of aggressive behaviour. Or haven't you noticed this pattern after all your time of posting on OLO?

“Those who belong to the dominant race, nationality or class will bring to the text the perspective of an ‘insider’, while those of the dominated race, nationality or class will bring to the text the perspective of an ‘outsider’. Usually it’s the insider perspective that sets the tone and rules of the ensuing debate.”

So it is with the “insiders” of feminist text, who trot out that invariably terminal judgement of anything written, performed, or created outside of those texts. Fractelle, take note: if you admit liking your father, you are no better; your recent girly lapse could very well be, his fault.

A lot of women like traditional roles and flourish in them. How many times need that be repeated?

Anansi,

'There would always have to be ‘a reason’...'
Exactly like when a woman commits a violent crime too. There always has to be some extenuating circumstance.

Fractelle, SJF,

Nobody is saying they want women to be 'cosseted pets'. The purpose of bringing up chivalry and such is to counter-balance the assertion that the gender role that men have had is a representation of aggressive domineering misogynistic abuse that so many feminists like to characterise. Sure, a lot of women weren't happy with their gender role, and most are happy that this has changed. But to demonise the the motives of all men throughout the ages, who loved their wives and children, to protray them all to be violent aggressive domineering abusers doesn't hold with the attitudes of chivalry. Men have genuinely loved women for centuries and are sick of this twisted version of history and masculine nature. The term 'patriachy', to me, is an expression of this world view; All men acting together in concerted attempts to materialise their inherant hatred of women.

Back to the topic.

I still reject the premise of this article. 'more involved, committed and responsible fathers.'. It's basically a backhanded way of saying before this 'revolution', fathers were just not committed or responsible.

Imagine if we talked about a motherhood revolution, where mothers are patronisingly praised for their efforts in the workplace. These new women are now finally committed and responsible enough to aid in providing financially for their children.

Fractelle, as Usual Suspect has pointed out my comments need to be viewed in the context of the discussion SJF and I are having rather than as an attack on women. I think that Usual Suspect has phrased the domineering position more strongly than SJF has suggested but he has captured the sense of how some of the talk of historical domination of women by men comes across at times.

Some people do dominate spouses, some of our religious fundies still think that they should be head of the house. Some people will use physical violence, others will use different tactics or a combination of tactics but the characteristics that lead to that are based on values and character not dangly bits.

Men are generally more effective at physical domination when they choose to go that route, we are generally stronger but then women might well have the edge in emotional and verbal domination.

I find the use of terms like domination/dominated to describe the roles socialised and forced onto people in times past to be insulting to all concerned. Individuals have obviously chosen to abuse those roles (from both sides), sometimes there may have been widespread abuse for a period, the roles have probably never been perfect and have certainly passed their use by date but that does mean that one side has consistantly used them to their own advantage.

I hold doors for all sorts of people, I'll give up my seat for someone when they appear to need it more than me and I'm not at all surprised that you do so. I know that women have given their lives for others but as I understand the conditioning of the past for men it was an obligation for women a choice (except maybe where their own children were involved). Women had different responsibilities socialised into them, some men took on those responsibilities when the need arose (being the prime carer when the mother died) but we can still look at history and see that the social conditioning for that responsibility was mainly directed at women.

R0bert

R0bert (Usual Suspect)

I never, ever used the term ‘domineering’ – only ‘dominant’ and ‘dominator’.

For the record, to ‘domineer’ means to behave in an arrogant and overbearing way. The words ‘dominant’ and ‘dominator’ are from the verb ‘to dominate’, meaning to prevail, command or influence.

If you don’t believe me, I strongly advise you to look them up.

I used the terms ‘dominator’ and ‘dominant’ because we were discussing Warren Farrell, who has grown very rich by writing book after book supposedly exposing the myth of male power. I’m not sure how one talks about a writer of books on male power (or lack thereof) without talking about systems of dominance. In fact, Farrell himself uses examples of dominance from history in order illustrate his own points.

Understanding is a two-way street and it is not my responsibility to change accurate and accepted wording because people such as you and Usual Suspect choose to misunderstand it, and then choose to be threatened or offended by your own misunderstanding.

Steel

‘A lot of women like traditional roles and flourish in them. How many times need that be repeated?’

To me … Only once, because believe it or not, I’m one of those ‘traditional’ mums. I was a full-time mum for ten years after my twins were born. And when I returned to work, it was on a part-time freelance basis from home.

For the most part, I flourished in the parenting role. Having achieved most of my career goals beforehand helped a lot, which is an advantage my mother’s generation – and the generations of women who preceded her – did not have.

Also, in the unlikely event that my husband and I were ever to separate, my decimated career means that I would be dependent on his goodwill for financial security – especially in the first 2 or 3 years. Because he’s a fair-minded man, I know it’s unlikely that I would have a problem; but some of my female friends have not been as fortunate.

SJF, play semantics if you like and then pretend that others are choosing to misunderstand you but I think most will read something other than influencing into "Rather, it is because men’s superior physical strength has given them an edge over women in perpetuating the dominator social order that has been in place for about 6,000 years."

R0bert

R0bert,

I think the distinction SJF makes is that women are domineering and men are the dominant dominators - with an implied single exception of one lucky Mr SJF.

R0bert

‘… play semantics if you like and then pretend that others are choosing to misunderstand you’

You ARE misunderstanding me. Not only do you lack the grace to admit to it, but you choose to side with someone who has clearly gone off on an obnoxious, personally insulting tangent that had nothing whatever to do with what I wrote.

I made the mistake of trying to have a discussion with you about the power issues discussed by Farrell. Instead of giving some respect to the points I made, you retreated into another one of your childish, manipulative I’m-so-hurt-that-you-suggest-that-men-are-brutes defences.

I might remind you that this particular exchange evolved from this comment you made several posts ago:

‘I took it that Farrell was saying most men have not had privilige and power, rather they have been treated as expendable because their biological function is different to that of women in terms of perpetuating the species.’

This remark - one that you obviously endorse - is one of the most insensitive comments I have ever read on OLO. It is unbelievably insulting to ALL women everywhere – and it underlines why I find Farrell so poisonous.

I could have chosen to do a vicious personal dump on you, in the manner of Steel or U.S or Seeker. Instead, I chose to engage with you on the topic.

And for my efforts, I now have my words twisted into some astoundingly ridiculous fantasy that every man in history has used his superior strength to beat up every woman in history every day for 6,000 years.

If it makes you feel better to think that, by all means do so. Who knows? It might even be true.

SJF,

You seem to be easily insulted. In my supposed 'obnoxious, personally insulting tangent', please explain where you are personally insulted.

Please also highlight any of my 'vicious personal dump' on anyone.

It seems any critisizm of feminism is a personal insult to SJF.

Yet she accuses robert of 'childish, manipulative I’m-so-hurt-that-you-suggest-that-men-are-brutes' defences.

Then she decides roberts comment, to suggest the majority of men do not have privilige and power, and are treated as expendable (which she agreed with previously) is..... wait for it.....

'one of the most insensitive comments I have ever read on OLO. It is unbelievably insulting to ALL women everywhere '

Now, I am guilty of exageration and extrapolation to make my points, but nowhere near as much as SJFs suggestion of viciousness, vilification (commment by proxy), personal insults, most insensitive comments on OLO, unbelieveably insulting to... wait for it.... ALL women everywhere. I'd love to know what forum she's reading.

'Within the context of their own domestic realm and in their own local community, ordinary men traditionally had more power and privilege than the most high-born of women.
'
I find that amusing actually (I'm not so easily offended as you SJF). Class inequity trumps gender inequity. Ask any garboligist with 4 kids whether they are better off than a doctors wife. Ask a peasant sh!t kicker whether he is better off than the Kings daughter.

SJF

What I have learned on OLO is that you can say "men are discriminated against" - which indeed many are.

But, if you say women are discriminated against, you receive a level of vitriol that if it was physical would be considered violence and is the reason I don't participate on these threads as much as I would like - I have had enough bullying for one lifetime.

I and every other woman who has posted on OLO have always acknowledged that DV occurs with men as victims too. Nor have any of us denied the importance a father figure plays in a child's development.

Yet women continue to be blamed by a particular contingent of men who clearly do want want to seek solidarity with women in working towards a more equitable world. They claim that feminism is to blame for all the laws of the the land.

I look at the political leaders, captains of industry, religious leaders, union bosses, university heads and STILL the majority is overwhelmingly male. And STILL women are blamed if men do not receive custody of children in divorce cases.

If men want to change family law, we need more female representation in all aspects of power, until then we will all be ruled by a minority of males who do not care that so many men are unhappy.

As for Farrell - I find him extremely worrisome, what he writes appears so rational until I read something like this:

" I was similarly surprised to discover that children raised by single dads are more empathetic. We usually think of empathy as something transmitted via the mother. Yet, in study after study, no matter what the family structure, the amount of time a father spends with a child is one of the strongest predictors of empathy in adulthood."
http://www.warrenfarrell.com/articles.php?id=6

Given the complete lack of empathy shown towards women who simply dared to express an opinion, I really have to wonder just what 'studies' Farrell is referring to. Where's the evidence?

Where's the empathy?

Fractelle,

'a level of vitriol that if it was physical would be considered violence'

My god we are getting dramatic.

'I have had enough bullying '
Where are you bullied. Maybe you feel bullied when your opinion doesn't match with the majority. I feel bullied when I have you, CJ and Romany all casting aspersions on my mental health, or questioning my relationship with my mother. See, that's an example of a 'personal' attack. SJF, you listening?

It seems to me that if someone doesn't agree with what you are saying, it's considered bullying by you. It's a strange definition from someone like yourself who admits to baiting and teasing people, although as I've said that's more than likely a back-peddling tactic.

' lack of empathy shown towards women who simply dared to express an opinion'
Hey, I'm not the one calling people obnoxiuos, childish, manipulative, or saying anything I don't agree with is a vicious personal attack, comparable to violence.

Fractelle, whilst I have concerns about some brands of feminism I'm most definately one of those who wants to blame feminism for the worlds woes. Not sure if I was included in your comments but just in case.

Agreed that over time and across the world males do hold most of the positions you talk about but as a reminder of what can be.

For where I live
The local counselor is female
The city mayor is female
The state premier is female
The state govenor is female
I assume in Kevins absence Julia is acting PM, if so the Nations PM is female
The Govenor General is female
The Queen is female

Of the nine levels of government representation I can think of for where I live seven of them are currently occupied by women.

On the other hand every level of management at my work in the chain from my position up is male (but we do have quite a few female managers).

SJF, I think I made it clear that you had not stated the male domination thing in the terms Usual Suspect used but I state that his comment captures how that theme often comes across. I attempted to distance your posts from US's description not link them.

I'm trying to work out why my views are "unbelievably insulting to ALL women everywhere", I've not blamed women for the situation I described, rather it's whats people both men and women have come up with to meet the needs, realities and myths of the times. I don't consider the social structures of the past to be a construct designed to benefit either gender across time but rather a mismatch of things that have often served the needs of the day and sometimes stayed beyond their use by date.

I've not tried to stop you expressing your views but have expressed my concern at the risks of viewing history that way, different things.

R0bert

R0bert, Fractelle

Just two quick final comments, here and in next post. If you respond, I'll read your comments but I won’t reply, as the thread seems to have run its course.

R0bert

I didn’t mean to accuse YOU of making ‘one of the most insensitive comments I have read on OLO’. I meant the ‘insensitivity’ to refer to Farrell. Sorry for my misplaced wording.

Just to clarify …When I said that Farrell’s claims about men’s expendability ‘are insulting to all women everywhere’, I was referring to the biological-necessity premise he uses to back it up (not the ‘male expendability’ aspect).

He is using a falsehood to justify a falsehood – and he is doing it at women’s expense.

Neither men nor women have a biological advantage in perpetuating the species. Women need men to reproduce and men can bring up children just as easily as women. What possible biological advantage is to be gained for women by having men stand up when they enter a room? And if putting women in life rafts ahead of men will ensure the perpetuation of the species, what about the millions of men left on dry land?

These codes of chivalry were about control of women, not biological necessity.

Instead of trying to enlighten his readers through his use of historical context, Farrell polarizes the genders by feeding into a common male anxiety about women getting the upper hand. After all, if men’s expendability can be shown to be in women’s biological interests, then it’s an easy mental leap to infer that all WOMEN view all men as expendable. THIS is what I meant as being insulting to all women everywhere.

Fractelle

I meant to take up some of the points you raised before but got sidetracked.

Your comment about Farrell sounding so reasonable and then throwing in something ‘worrisome’ is spot on. I think that’s what many of his critics find so murky about him.

My theory is that he lulls the reader into a sense of plausibility by making a series of sensible points. Then he quietly slips a misogynistic abomination in with the mix so that it slips easily under most people’s humbug radar. I don’t know if he does it deliberately or not, but he does it.

And as for those 'empathy studies' he cites, methinks they were probably based on questionnaires slipped into the dust covers of porn DVDs and distributed free to truckie stops, Hells Angels HQ, Broncos locker rooms and Melbourne’s Athenaeum Club.

Well, to me, my comments are justified and suspicions confirmed...

'These codes of chivalry were about control of women'

See how the motives of men wanting to protect women they loved is turned into a dominating, controlling motive.

Then she says 'After all, if men’s expendability can be shown to be in women’s biological interests, then it’s an easy mental leap to infer that all WOMEN view all men as expendable. '

I say, 'If mens chivalry can be shown to be motivated by a desire to control or dominate women, then it’s an easy mental leap to infer that all MEN view women as a possesion to control or dominate.'

SJF

Thanks for your comments. I agree Farrell reminds me of a line from Tolkien which goes something like: "Looks fair but feels more foul" I know this isn't quite correct, but that is how people like Bly, Farrell and Gray make me feel. If they really cared about both sexes wouldn't they be communicating to both men and women, instead of just men?

Clearly the majority of us (men and women) feel that the existing status quo is not helping anyone -not the average family. Therefore, I have to ask myself who IS reaping the benefits keeping women as primary carers and men as primary breadwinners (women lose on career paths and men lose on family life). Some who gain are religions; sects like the Exclusive Brethren use existing Family Laws to isolate fathers who leave their sect.

for example: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1745886.htm

"Ron Fawkes Interview

Read the edited interview of Quentin McDermott’s interview with former Exclusive Brethren leader Ron Fawkes, on being excommunicated from the Church and his family......

Q. Do you regret leaving the church?

A. No... I regret losing my wife and children deeply. But I don’t regret leaving the church. ...I regard it as a blessing from God now because I’m free to think for myself. Free to make choices. Free to exercise my own conscience.

.... I mean I’ve got some health problems, I believe due directly to the years of loneliness and sorrow, heartache - I love them with a passion. I love my children. I’d love more than to be reconciled with them. ..."

OK the E.B's are just one. Keeping women as primary caregivers and promoting the idea that feminism is to blame keeps the average Joe Schmoe and Joanne Schmoe at each other's throats so nothing changes. Who benefits?

I wonder if I would've selected a better partner than the one I did if my father had been actively involved with his family instead of being the product of his generation and remaining the distant father. We (my family) rarely saw him, either he was at work or out drinking and gambling.

SJF, thanks for the clarification.

Just to clarify, I think that the needs of both men and women have been placed behind the needs of society by socialisation. That has ups and downs over time.

I don't bielieve that either gender has had a distinct overall advantage or control over time, rather different roles, opportunities and limitations.

I don't think I brought Farrel into the discussion, rather I spoke up following a reference to Liz's site. I hope that I've got that right but I've not gone back and checked. I then responded to questions about why I don't dismiss all that he says and the rest seemed to flow from there.

As I said earlier it may be we all intepret what we read according to preconceptions. I don't see the world in terms of one gender controlling the other so I don't pick that up in writing unless someone is laboring the point.

Cheers
R0bert

To summarise,

The message of this article is really just a backhanded way of saying before this 'revolution', fathers were just not committed or responsible.

Imagine if we talked about a motherhood revolution, where mothers are patronisingly praised for their efforts in the workplace; These new women are now finally committed and responsible enough to aid in providing financially for their children.

In the discussion here, the concept of chivalry being analogous to treating women as cosseted pets, all about control of women was expressed.

My disagreement about this, in favour of an argument that many men use chivalry as an expression of their respect and love for women was considered an obnoxious, personally insulting tangent.

Further, my posts in general were dismissed and ignored as viciousness, vilification, personal insults, bullying and a level of hatred comparable to violence. I was repremanded for having the temerity to even address Romany.

SJF interpreted a quote from Farrell thus...
'if men’s expendability can be shown to be in women’s biological interests, then it’s an easy mental leap to infer that all WOMEN view all men as expendable. '

which to her represents one of the most insensitive comments she has ever read on OLO, unbelievably insulting to ALL women everywhere.

But from her logic above, it obviously follows that 'If mens chivalry can be shown to be motivated by a desire to control or dominate women, then it’s an easy mental leap to infer that all MEN view women as a possesion to control or dominate.'

So it baffles me how my objecting to this concept was considereed to be a vicious, personally insulting dump.

I leave this topic dased and confused by all this.

Nice article.

I don't think a fatherhood revolution will lure dead-beat dads into thinking fatherhood is 'cool' turning them into great fathers.

Unfortunately the problem is with society and the media's current definition of a father.
I've seen the ads on father's day calling families to buy 'GuitarHero' for dads, c'mon really an Xbox game, is that what society thinks of us fathers, why are they treating us as man-boys. On the flip-side of the coin on mother's day families are told to buy mum books.

Another ad shows a man asking his wife what benefits came with their home and contents insurance, he was unaware that they had flood damage cover.

So in just a few ads we see how society portays men (fathers specifically). So us fathers are lazy, gamers, unintelligent, unaware, we spend money not knowing what we purchase and we have to run to our intelligent wives to ask them for help in every situation.

There is no doubt that society is brainwashing fathers to keep them boys as long as they can, this is in order to keep them consumers.
A father that works hard, raises his children, protects his wife and is not concerned with the latest fashion is of no use to the economy.

What they are doing is keeping us man-boys so that we spend our money where we don't need to spend it and have no interest in raising our children, thus our sons also grow up to be man-boys.