Forced Fatherhood: a response.

I never go there unless linked for a reason, and this time, I feel the need to respond.  Amanda Marcotte, writing over at Pandagon, writes out a list or 'requirements' for Feminist support for male reproductive rights.

Somehow, I managed to hold back my grateful relief that Feminists will allow 'would-be Deadbeat Dads' (as opposed to Pro Choice, or Pro Adoption, women) to finally lay claim to rights equal to those of women:

• He has to sign away all rights before the baby is born.  He does not get his name on the birth certificate. The child’s father will be registered as “unknown”. If someone else—say his ex’s new husband—wishes to adopt and coparent the child, he cannot interfere.

Sure, I can get behind that.

• The only exception to this is if the mother did not alert the father to the pregnancy beforehand. He should be able to provide witnesses to testify that he hadn’t seen her in at least six months prior to the birth.

Some kind of time limit, preferably equal to that amount of time to decide that women would have, sure.  This seems reasonable enough.

• He never contacts the child. As far as his child knows, he’s a ghost. No visits, no toys, no pictures, nothing. He should also not be allowed to contact the mother. If he reaches out to the mother, she has full rights to sue him for child support, using that as evidence that he actually does want a relationship with his ex and his biological child.

Agreed.  You can't unmake the decision to adopt out...oh, wait, you can.  Well, I can agree to this anyway.

• This is for life. If you contact the child on her 18th birthday, you owe 18 years of back child support. If you contact the child when she’s 30, same thing: All 18 years of child support, with interest.

 Nope.  Can't see why this should be in place.  What if the contact is accidental?  What if it is for legitimate, or emergency purposes?   Not to mention this treats Child Support as a punishment (which it surely is, but is almost never presented that way).  I CAN agree if said contact is in order to establish a relationship, but only if the exact same requirements are laid on parents who contact their post-adoption children later.  See, it's not about punishing men for having sex Amanda, no matter how much you want to.

A distinction without a difference.

So, I followed a link from a blurb on Mensactivism.org, to a GQ Magazine UK article, which criticises another article from the Guardian, which was ostensibly written in concern for today's men and boys.  Sorta convoluted, I know, but it's relevant.

I followed the links, dutifully, and got a bit of a handle on the arguments presented, and came to the realization that this is a great case study in Feminist 'concern' for men, and the Blue Pill criticism the Lamestream Media is capable of mustering.  Not only that, but the holes left in each of their arguments are quite instructive, if one is inclined to believe in the significance of such things.  Since I am inserting myself downstream, I will limit myself to topics 'debated' in the GQ response article for the most part.

First, understand you are worthwhile.

One of the very first things a young boy learns, is that his pain, suffering, confusion, fear...etc ad nauseum....is by far less important than damned near anyone else.  Less important than 'Mom's needs', less important than 'sister's needs', even less important than 'random woman on the street's needs'.

From the time we are old enough to understand language, young boys are taught it is 'never OK to hit a girl', while girls are applauded for truly nasty behaviour - which for them, apparently, is 'empowering'.  Young boys are repeatedly told, by nearly every 'authority figure' they come in contact with, that men (especially the white ones) are responsible for all the evil in the world, and have deliberately hurt women and girls for centuries.

And young boys are indoctrinated to accept their lowered status in society...to 'make up for past injustices'.

Every man has similar experiences as a child.  Every man is aware, to at least some extent, that he is forbidden to complain about...or even note...said double standards.  After all, Real Men(tm) don't 'whine'.

Voltaire (by all accounts a pretty smart and influential dude) put it this way:  "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

Sound logic, if you ask me...

A Basic Feminist Hypocrisy.

One of the basic ideas behind affirmative action was that there is "systemic bias", or a(n) (un)concious effort to both discourage and actively bar women from participation. As evidence, the lack of female participation in such areas as engineering, medicine and the like were used.

When it was pointed out that women chose to not enter these professions the argument was made that society did not encourage it, as well as other social/structural reasons, and that "awareness campaigns" must be mounted to encourage women to seek these professions. This was in addition to millions of dollars and man-hours "tailoring" these professions to be more woman-friendly. This was all in the name of "equality" since it was meant to establish equality of outcome, not opportunity. This is the entire underpinning of such concepts as "affirmative action".

Shift the focus a tad to the Family Court system though, and such glaring deficiencies such as markedly fewer men getting custody of their children is glossed over by redefining "Joint Custody" to also cover what used to be called "Sole Custody with Visitation". This was done to counter initial arguments that fathers see too little of their children, and to APPEAR more equal.

Now that the evidence is mounting of severe inequalities in outcome in the Family Court system, these same feminist voices are pooh-poohing the whole thing saying "Men just don't go for custody as often as women", or "Men are fine with walking away".

See the hypocrisy?

In one instance, equality of outcome is paramount. So paramount in fact that even if people don't want to do it, we must work to convince them to, and make it as easy as possible for them to do so. But in the other, we should ignore everything because it's not really a big deal. Men don't care all that much anyway. "Awareness Campaigns"? For fatherhood? I suppose, as long as we blame men. "Systemic Bias"? What's that?