And Especially Father's Rights

with the average child's exposure to tv at about 7 hours a day....you are too right!

You are right IT. Generalizations are never accurate. I meant that good role models in their own home should have more influence on a childs attitudes towards masculinity and femininity than television shows. Sometimes that is not always the case as you point out.

thank you! i appreciate my story resonating with you :)

THANK YOU!! You have brilliantly said everything that I have been thinking for two decades, now! I haven't said it as much publicly as I feel it deserves to be said, but, as a woman, I think that you almost have more ability to say this without backlash that I have gotten whenever I have said ANYTHING on it! There are a lot of angry women out there who will not tolerate the notion that men have anything but the upper hand in EVERYTHING in our society, which is not true. There are many ways in which women have it better. And you have mentioned the most salient of them.



Thank you, again!

i loved your comment, but "And the only one that matters is the relationship in their own house. " is in my opinion totally inaccurate. if that were true, there would never be a "bad" kid out of a stable home.

Interesting post and interesting comments.



When it comes to the family, I think you are absolutely correct. A masculine influence is needed as much as a feminine influence in a child's life. I don't think you can use TV shows like Family Guy and the Simpsons as examples of the lack of influence of the male in the relationship. There are just as many other shows where there is a more positive father role depicted. You have to censor what kids watch if you want the best messages to come across. And the only one that matters is the relationship in their own house.



What is the definition of a masculine influence though? I think men take a more active role in their kids lives nowadays (I see a lot of dads at soccer games, coaching teams, picking up kids at school, going on field trips, etc).



Legally, I might agree that the laws favor the women but only because I've heard some horror stories. Decades ago, it is probably needed as women were caregivers with no resources to provide for a family without legal assistance. Today though that is not always the case and I hope the legal system reflects what is best for the children and not a hard and fast set of rules.



Corporately, again I can only comment on my experience and I see highly-placed competent and incompetent women in increasing numbers but certainly still at a much lower percentage than men. I work in a traditionally male dominated field though. Possibly a bad example.

i couldn't agree more, and thank you for adding to my story!

One of the things that I have found interesting is the fact that some of the replies I have read seem quite defensive towards feminism and imply the idea of a maculine movement is a threat to feminism. For both genders to grow it is vital for both movements, vital to the happiness of both genders, vital to the balance of power between sexes and vital for personal relationships. Both sexes have been alienated by modern society, and in order to address this, both movements are necessary. Feminism is ahead of the maculine movement, through the actions of 50's male dominance. The 60's dismissed this outdated view of what a man is, but replaced it with an idea that for a man to heal, he must connect with his feminine side. Before I go any further, I would like to clarify that there is a massive difference between feminity and being a woman. Since the 60's men have tried to connect with the feminine side and is suspicious of his own masculinty. Masculinity in the media is seen as destructive, aggressive and exploitative. That is not masculinity. Masculinity is about resolve, it is the warrior spirit but not the war. Men cannot find themselves through connecting with the feminine anymore than a woman can find herself by connecting with her masculinity. The genders are different, we have different needs, different driving forces. In order to move forward both genders need to explore the differences and celebrate them. One is not better than the other, both are needed. In modern society women have become empowered, but one of the negative side effects of this is that they have lost touch with their femininity, and replaced it with the same defunct aspect of masculinty of the 50's male. Many women are not celebrating their feminity but acting like self-destructive men, fighting in the streets, becoming hard arses in the work place etc. Some of this is down to the mistaken belief that because the workplace is still dominated by men, they have to be men to succeed. They are denying their own female side. Men, are also affected by this, and have embraced feminity, becoming "softer". Women need male energy, and when a male partner does not show this, he is seen as not manly enough, and the relationship is controlled by the female. He wants to understand his partner, love her and carry her burdens at the expense of his own. Women want him to be a fierce warrior to protect her, but also take on a more feminine role in order to understand her emotional needs. In this situation, man loses his identity and his gender role, leading to confusion.He has had no male mentor to teach him what it is to be a man, and as such, continues to be a boy. Western societies have no initiation ceremonies for either boys or girls and i believe this leads to a difficult transition into adulthood. Women have a biological initiation in menstruation, but men do not have this. This is why 40 year old men still play video games. Both genders have lost their way and need to develop their own gender identities, something new from the dysfunctional ones we have now. Men need to celebrate women and women need to celebrate men, this can only be done if we understand what it means to be a man/woman, and this is exactly why we need both movements.

i do not have a husband, but my partner does not tell me what to do ;)



i am the sole income for my family. it would help if he did some housework while unemployed, but at least the tv and computer never get lonely

thanks for your response. today, i wish i was home, cooking, cleaning, and breeding (which i actually am lol) instead of stuck in an office doing work for other people. so i am not in the right frame of mind to get all riled lol. ;)

what you want isn't equality, sorry. your power? by what right do you claim such power?

i would love to see a real men's movement begin. thanks, CPAguy.

sirhoot already pointed out how the DOL site has no statistics to support the statement that women earn less for the same job, so yes, barring any new statistics, Sara's arguments are still without merit.



And it's hardly a canard. There are two completely different questions: Are women discouraged from entering certain professions, and, in particular professions are women held back and/or paid less than their male counterparts due to their gender? Both of those are relevant, and separate, questions when asking something like "Why are there so few women in upper echelon politcs?", for example.

thank you! :)

Excuse me, but my examples are NOT as inaccurate as anecdotal evidence which is, as pointed out, meaningless.



Women are now hired in corporations as the laws forced this to happen (businesses did NOT fall all over themselves to hire ANY women in ANY responsible position prior to being required to do so)... yet the glass ceiling remains. Again I ask, how high are women allowed to rise?



And salary compensation is not arguable: The wage gap holds true -- even when women are in comparable positions for comparable lengths of time -- just look at the US Dept. Of Labors stats (http://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/main.htm)



As for the number of women in political life... saying that fewer women enter these fields is an old canard... just like businesses saying they couldn't find good women to hire or colleges saying women couldn't be admitted ... If women are discouraged from entering a field, we won't get very far in it. Clubhouse politics -- backroom deals, mutual promotion, mutual graft, mutual coverups -- is as old as political parties.

I can elaborate more on this from personal experience, but I will not do it on an EP board, as it is far too real for me.



However, I can say that this is a pretty decent story, IT. Thank you for posting it. Good job.

I am enjoying your debate :)



I think both genders are treated unfairly, I really do.

I have no idea if there's a balance or not, but those examples saratoga gives are totally without merit. They fail to take into account how many women enter those careers/career paths. If 50 men enter politics for every 1 woman then the argument totally falls apart. Having been in and around highly male-dominated fields my whole adult life I can say that I've seen management practically fall all over themselves to hire women, much more so than an equally qualified man.



The only convincing evidence I would accept would be surveys of women in those careers typically dominated by men. Do they feel they've been held back because of their gender? And I'm talking a genuine scientific survey, not something commissioned by NOW or some right-wing group.



Certainly from personal experience I've never seen discrimination based on gender. If anything I've seen favoritism. But that's anecdotal and counts for about as much as Sara's arguments.

Well we certainly do NOT have balance now. As I previously said, I am NOT anti male. I adore some men. But I cannot even begin to believe that society favors women. If men are caricatured on some tv shows now, look at the average movie or adventure show -- typically one woman and three men. Even cartoons still have male characters heavily outnumbering females. If male dominance is "ending" I see little data to support that. Sure there are more women in positions of power now than 50 years ago, since there were NONE then. Here in the US, of the 1000 top companies, how many are run by women? Of the 100 Senators, how many are women? Of the 50 governors, how many are women?



Please.

i think it's essential we find a balance.

"The basic assumption seems to be that a Mother always makes the best parent and that's just not true."



Women are more likely to give child-rearing careful attention to detail and patience. They often have an instinctive kindness that is good for children under age 8 or so.



But mothers also are more likely to spoil and pamper children. To overlook and rationalise away deficiencies in character and academic performance.



Older children, and all children in certain situations, need tough love, and I have often noticed that mothers come up short here. Fathers can be important in conveying to older kids how the world works, and how to stay out of trouble.



A serious problem I have discovered in recent years is that middle aged mothers are silently assumed to be beyond reproach. To be the pillars of society and the guardians or moral order. Sadly, I have observed that this is mistaken. Mothers nowadays often indulge their children and themselves, setting a bad example. They do not hold their children to a high enough standard. They hold naive and rose-tinted views of what childhood is like. They rationalise their own selfish desires and ambitions as "being in the best interest of our/all children." They can be blind to evident behaviour problems and character defects in their children. They can undermine all authority figures other than themselves by overruling those authority figures. Mothers can be blind to the great harm caused when they overrule decisions by teachers and fathers concerning children.

Bisou-I am actually aware Canada is a little better on this issue than we are lol ;-)



thanks for your thoughts all, i appreciate them!

Saratoga girl:



Men being in charge is fading, if only because men are lagging behind in the formal education required to be in charge of things.

intrepidtraveler: I thank you for bringing certain facts to the attention of readers of this thread.



Your essay is the first time I have ever seen the word "masculist."



I have not read Warren Farrell, but am aware of his career and have read 1-2 long interviews he's given. He most definitely qualifies as a masculist intellectual.



The depiction of fictional fathers on TV is not flattering, to say the least.



The wage gap between men and women is narrowing, and now consists primarily of married men earning more than married women. Single women do as well as single men.



There is a growing gender gap in formal education, one favouring women. Even in my day, girls did better than boys in primary and secondary school. Now they do better in college as well. The fraction of an age cohort that completes university is now markedly tilted towards women. It is men who are at risk of educational deficits, of substance abuse, who are more likely to be victims of violence.



If the feminine condition is inferior, why do thousands of men every year take estrogen and beginning living and dressing as women? Nothing like this, short of plastic surgery to male tackle, bothers me. Being a woman is a gentler more settled life.

How are you about to lose the right to choose? We've got a liberal house, a liberal senate, a liberal president, and a supreme court that's fairly moderate with 3 democratic appointees and 6 republican appointees. The court makeup may seem bad, but it's been that way since Reagan and Roe -v- Wade has stood all that time, and if anything the court is likely to get more liberal with 5 justices over 70.



Now, to get back on the topic, I don't know that we need an entire movement devoted to men, but I do think we could stand to examine some of the rights of Fathers, or lack thereof. The basic assumption seems to be that a Mother always makes the best parent and that's just not true.

Umm I enjoyed your story very much but I disagree in one point

It is NOT automatically the woman who gets the child and the fathers DO get rights. In canada anyway. It's all dependant on what's best for the children. Is mommy home all the time? Does daddy have a job? Who normally watched over them? Who will be able to norture them better?

That's what it comes down to, not there gender.

Like I said enjoyed the story :)

What about the men who don't want to be violent, SG? What about the majority of men who have no control over what you or I make?

I think that it is RICH people who make laws. It's classism. Remember when welfare enacted the "man in the house" law? And women who chose to try to live with the father of their children had to forego the social support? so poor women everywhere had to kick daddy to the curb to survive. and fatherhood-especially young low income fatherhood-has been declining ever since.

Exactly!



When Beth had to go to hospital, he had to practically put up a fight to stay the night with her, he has full custody, made no sense

I find many men absolutely wonderful... you know that... I have many male friends and I adore my Daddy...



But let's face it... men still out earn women... men still commit the vast majority of "gender" crimes around the world, men still write the laws, run the religions, staff the armies, and start the wars.



Men make up the audience for Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh...



They no not need a "masculist" movement... but we need to rekindle the feminist movement... right here in the US we are about to loose the right to choose... Sarah Palin is being pushed as a roll model... and rapes continue to be under-reported, as is most violence against women.



I love you, sister, but I think that men are still in charge, despite the Simpsons.

It's just as hard as single mothering, but with an eighth of the social support. I've never seen a men's bathroom with a changing table, for example!