Who Is This?

Frank, a forty-something software engineer in Southern California.
Weblogs Of Special Merit
Reciprocal Links
Referrers
Powered by
Movable Type 3.34

May 24, 2003

Sociology

"Father's rights" and other lies.

After yesterday's correction, I read more of Trish Wilson's Blog and eventually made my way to her Women's Network website. I am in general a feminist (no arguments about whether men can be feminists, thanks), strongly support women's rights and understand very well indeed that the treatment of women has historically been abominable, to say the least. I don't go so far as some radical feminists who use made-up terms like "herstory" and who seem a bit strident to me, but I certainly recognize that we as a society have a long way to go in our quest to eliminate discrimination, whether that is on the basis of sex, religion or skin color.

With that in mind, you might imagine my reaction when I discovered this web page, which Trish links to at the bottom of the main page of the Women's Network site. The page consists of quotes from men in the so-called "father's rights" movement. Reading these quotes, one would think that feminism is responsible for every ill known to man, from athlete's foot to dandruff, from Stalinism to the rise of the Nazi party in Germany in the 1930's. These men (and I use the term very loosely) defend pedophilia and child molestation, advocate repealing the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage), literally advocate the death of feminists and call any woman who might have the temerity to disagree with them a "slut" or a "feminazi," or worse. I just wonder what they would call me? Probably something like "a traitor to my sex." But better to be called a traitor than to be a traitor to my own humanity.

This is by no means the first time I have run into these idiots. I have in the past been a pretty prolific poster to Usenet, in particular to the soc.singles newsgroup. That newsgroup would get regular waves of this kind of idiot wandering in from other groups. I've also dealt from time to time with a few of the notables in other newsgroups. Fortunately, those dealings have been relatively few. I've never before run into such a large mass of such putrid, stinking ravings until following that link on Trish's site.

Why do I react with revulsion to those idiots and their ravings? Well, in general I think that anyone who is relatively healthy and mature would react pretty negatively to them. Their ravings have essentially no basis in fact and rely on ignorance, superstition, fear and hatred to spread. Assertions such as this, "True gender equality will exist when, and only when the verbal and psychological abuse women often inflict upon their husbands is regarded as EQUALLY SERIOUS as the physical abuse men inflict upon their wives" (Gary Clark, in alt.mens-rights), are simply and obviously ridiculous. (True, men are abused, even physically abused, but that abuse is more often at the hands of men than of women and the abuse that women suffer is much, much more common and severe. Even a cursory examination of the evidence shows this, so no one should be fooled for a second; that people are fooled shows that they want to be fooled and care nothing for the facts of the matter.)

Even so, my reaction is stronger and even more visceral than might normally be warranted. The reason for this is pretty simple, actually, and is the same reason that I think that Rick Santorum should not be a senator based on his recent remarks: I was molested as a child. Santorum said that what priests did to children was "consensual." These execrable fools go even further, if that is possible, and attempt to justify molestation, or at best "excuse" it. My experience was thirty-seven years ago and it still affects me deeply, as it will for the rest of my life. I have no contact with the person that did it but I do know that he is in a wheelchair, that his wife and child (who I am certain was also abused) have left him and I would be happy to see him die. The emotional destruction from molestation is incalculable. Only a monster could even try to justify or excuse it. A monster, or a person who saw no other person as being like himself.

As to my support of feminism itself and my nausea at the claims of these idiots, I have long recognized the simple fact that women can do pretty much anything that men can do. (Even pee standing up, although that can be a bit messy and I don't recommend it as a general practice.) My mother demonstrated to me early on that gender roles were relatively meaningless. She wasn't that great at parenting, unfortunately, but she never for a moment let the idea that something was a "man's job" get in her way. When I was in college I learned that psychologically and neurologically there are few differences between men and women and that those are even now very hotly debated. Individual variation within any group utterly overwhelms the variation between groups, whether those groups be men versus women, whites versus blacks, Asian versus European or any other. If the difference isn't strictly biological, for all practical purposes it doesn't exist.

The people (such as the so-called "father's rights" groups) who propound such differences do so only because they have a vested interest in doing so. They are trying to build themselves up by tearing others down, as if status and self respect were a zero-sum game. Further, these idiots blame all of their woes on the other group, in this case "feminists," rather than taking responsibility for the problems themselves and doing something about them. If your ex-wife gets sole custody, maybe you should consider that it might be because you're not such a good father instead of blaming it all on the "system" or on "feminazis." Being a good father can be damned difficult (particularly if, like me, you had no good role model and have to deal with the scars of a hellish childhood); it is oh-so-much easier to blame someone else for your own failures. Of course, the fact remains that your failures are still your failures, no matter whom you might decide to blame. I have been and will be a good father, no matter how difficult that might be. I will not excuse my behavior, I will not blame my difficulties on my piss-poor father or on my painful childhood. None of that matters, not to my wife and not to my child. All that matters is that I am a good father.

Taking responsibility for your own problems and shortcomings is hard, but it's the only way to be a decent father and a decent human being. Two things that these idiots are not.

Posted by Frank at May 24, 2003 9:44 PM
Comments

You shouldn't take anything from Liz Kates as an accurate picture of the fathers' movement, any more than you should take a compendium of quotes, in context and out-of-context, compiled by an enemy of the women's movement as representative of feminism. Goodness knows it wouldn't be at all difficult to find 20 or so quotes from radical feminists that together would create the impression that feminists hate men.

The Kates page also contains a number of made-up quotes and sheer fabrications, some of which are aimed at myself personally, through Kates' collaboration with an attorney who represented a party with whom I've been engaged in litigation in the past.

It's of course very sad that you were abused as a child, and it certainly would be better for you and your family if you hadn't been. This is not a reason, however, for you to carry a grudge against the fathers' movement, a group of men who actually had nothing to do with your molestation and who have actively sought tougher penalties for molesters.

The typical molestation scenario, as I'm sure you're aware, involves a teenaged girl molested by either an unmarried boyfriend of her mother or a stepfather, and not the child's biological father. Fathers' rights activists have worked tirelessly (but with very little success) to make this scenario less common.

Learn who your friends are, Frank, and don't take everything you read on the Web as gospel.

Posted by: Richard Bennett at May 28, 2003 10:49 PM

The typical molestation scenario, as I'm sure you're aware, involves a teenaged girl molested by either an unmarried boyfriend of her mother or a stepfather, and not the child's biological father. Fathers' rights activists have worked tirelessly (but with very little success) to make this scenario less common.

This is actually not true, as I'm sure you know. The "typical molestation scenario," as you put it, is a child, boy or girl, molested by a male blood relative. It is essentially never "a teenaged girl molested by either an unmarried boyfriend of her mother or a stepfather." That's not to say that this doesn't happen, but it is very rare; it is much, much more common for a child to be molested by his or her biological father or other blood relative.

If you had any direct knowledge of this subject you would know this; any survey of molestation cases shows that the molesters are overwhelmingly likely to be male blood relatives. That you deny this only shows that you have no interest in honesty, but instead are only interested in pursuing some twisted personal agenda. I don't know what you get out of this, besides a false feeling of "superiority" as you denigrate others. You malign women solely to shore up your own ego.

You are no friend of mine, Richard. You and your kind make me physically ill.

Posted by: Frank Mayhar at May 29, 2003 7:43 AM

So you're saying that the 90% of molest cases in which the perp is somebody other than a blood relative are not typical?

That's an interesting perspective, and one that leads me to believe that yes, you are a feminist.

Now let's take your doctrine of personal responsibility and apply it to blacks in the Jim Crow South. Does it work?

Posted by: Richard Bennett at May 29, 2003 12:15 PM

No, I'm saying that "the 90% of molest cases in which the perp is somebody other than a blood relative" is false. From the hard data that I've seen, anywhere from twenty to fifty percent of sexual abuse cases are committed by the male parent or other male blood relative. This is far from the "no more than one in ten" that you claim.

Yes, as I said, I'm a feminist. I suppose that in your eyes this makes me "evil," doesn't it?

As far as your final strawman, well, it appears to me that the people in question did take responsibility for themselves. It wasn't huge numbers of white folks walking in those civil rights marches, was it? Of course, this is irrelevant, since the systematic discrimination against people with darker skin of the first three-fifths of the last century has nothing at all to do with the fact that white males sometimes don't get custody of their children. If you think that you, a white male, are being discriminated against, I know some people who would be glad to teach you a lesson or two about what real discrimination feels like.

Now, instead of making up numbers and tossing them out, can you point at some real statistics? My "twenty to fifty percent" figure is based on a number of sources and is primarily derived from statistics published by the Department of Justice.

Feh. You're just like all the rest of your kind. You know what you believe and you aren't interested in any fact or viewpoint that might contradict it.

Posted by: Frank Mayhar at May 29, 2003 1:26 PM

You're using the typical feminist debate trick of conflation: combining unlike things in order to condemn by association. If, as you say, 20-50% of sexual abuse is done by either A) the father, or B) a blood relative; my claim (that biological fathers do 10% of it) can still be true.

Additionally, the male-bashers tend to lump bio dads and stepdads together (and sometimes "father figures"), but the offending rates of these groups are very different.

Read the primary sources more carefully.

Posted by: Richard Bennett at May 29, 2003 2:45 PM

Incidentally, your perception of the fathers' movement as the exclusive province of whites is also misinformed. When I lobbied the California legislature, my chief partners were a Hispanic state senator from East LA and an African-American assemblyman from South-Central LA. Minorities are disproportionately victimized in family court, by child protection agencies, and by child support enforcement agencies, because they lack the legal sophistication that comes from the educational opportunities whites enjoy in the suburbs, where most families have two parents in the home.

The fathers movement is simply a continuation of the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s, and an attempt to overcome the after-effects of social policy (the "man-out-of-the-house-rule") intended to reduce minority fertility.

Perhaps you can tell me why twice as many black women as black men attend and graduate universities these days, and what the feminist movement is doing to correct this imbalance.

Posted by: Richard Bennett at May 29, 2003 3:25 PM

For further reading of my response, see A "fathers' rights" advocate tries to win me over.

I won't be responding to you any more, Bennett. You aren't interested in facts, you're only interested in promoting your agenda.

Posted by: Frank at May 29, 2003 8:24 PM

All Rights Reserved