From a post at Glenn Sacks' blog...
Usually I find the posts there interesting, if somewhat milquetoast at times. Imagine my surprise at seeing Feminist dogma taken as moral imperative....
If dad earns $70,000 a year and mom earns $67,000 a year, it's definitely the solution. But what if dad earns $120,000 and mom, because she was the children's primary caregiver during the marriage, earns only $30,000?
In this case it would neither be fair to the woman nor productive for the children for there to be no financial support from the father to the mother. In effect, the mother is being punished because she diminished her earning capacity to be the children's primary caregiver. Also, her ability to care for her kids and provide for them when they're with her is compromised.
First of all, I was a stay home Dad in my children's early years, and my ex continues to make substantially more than me to this day. I had 50/50 custody of my kids, and lost them because I couldn't afford to keep them anymore.
Where was the need to be fair to me, or productive to my children? No one, not even once, no one ever suggested I should be getting money from her, or offered gov't services. Not even me.
The assertion that he would somehow owe her for supporting her for those years is totally disgusting, when used as a generality. There are certain instances (such as him leaving her for selfish reasons) where some sort of compensation for breach of contract (which goes BOTH ways) may be in order...
But as a default stance? No freakin' way!
If she doesn't make as much as him, and hates the disparity...well, then I guess they should have stayed together eh? As for the kids, frankly an education on how the "other half lives" would likely prove beneficial.
The whole argument is essentially paraphrased feminist dogma.
She is NOT "giving up her earning capacity for him", she IS doing what she would rather do, or as close to it as possible. Staying home with children is a LUXURY these days, not a sacrifice...the idea that it should be compensated for after Divorce is anathema to the very concept of sexual equality.
She can work hard, and get ahead...just like he did.
It seems to me the problem is the assumption that she earned less because she was the primary caregiver.
ReplyDeleteMaybe she would have earned less anyway - women marry up, and may stop working just because they can when they get married, or just take easy jobs because someone else is picking up the tab.
Also a man might earn more because he was supporting a wife and child.
So he is more motivated, or his boss thinks he deserves more.
None of these possibilities are even considered in Glenn Sacks blog post.
Exactly.
ReplyDeleteIt's about time we stopped "taking women's position into consideration"....it's time to demand equality.
I don't really fault Glenn for occasionally supporting a position that might be more sympathetic to women in general. Unlike the feminists, we shouldn't expect everyone to always toe the party line.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do find myself getting bored with the site sometimes. There is often too much recycling of the same old talking points we are all familiar with, with a bit of human interest thrown in, and not enough new perspectives or analysis.
There are only so many times you can read an article explaining how the "wage gap" is a myth, or that men are being mocked in some ad, before you say "okay, we know all this. How can we make sense of things or move forward."
Often the best debates on Glenn Sacks are when the threads drift away from the designated topic.
I totally agree. There was a while there where lively debate was on nearly every thread, and no shortage of honing of skills.
ReplyDeleteBut the the whining feminists succeeded in dictating behaviour and censorship became a bit of an issue, and many of the highly "vocal" members left...some in disgust. I think it really does seem pretty canned these days, but I still drop by on occasion.
Personally, I think people like Fidelbogen and Polish Knight should start up a site...now THAT would be an interesting set of debates. :)
The way forward right now, as I see it, is undermining the social meme that self-identifying as feminist carries no repercussion, because it's "those other kind of feminists" are to blame. I contend that feminists that TRULY distance themselves from unhealthy behaviours can only do so by disavowing the label. Anything less is proof of agreement.
Sure it's uncompromising. But the sooner the name "feminist" equates to "bullshit" in the political elite mindset, the sooner men will be able to get out from under this crap.
Plus, the stance quickly reveals those that would rather their ideology and membership in the "in crowd", than actual fairness and justice.
Factory, what I think would be a good idea is if a handful of posters from Glenn Sacks started a joint blog.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the site is not what it used to be. Not long ago it was common to have threads going on for hundreds of comments, with really vigorous and heated debates. Now that never happens.
It seems that most of the more lively commenters have either left or been kicked off, and as a result much of the life has been sucked out of the site.
That's what I've noticed too...
ReplyDeleteThe JeanA's of the world have nearly succeeded in "castrating" that site. It still serves a purpose as a "MRM101" type place, but any changes that come about due to activism are more likely to arise from uncompromising anger on our part....being "reasonable" will get us precisely nowhere....