http://www.dictionaryfordads.com/custodyanddivorce.htm
I love being a man in a society where males have all the benefits. Oh, wait...
I love being a man in a society where males have all the benefits. Oh, wait...
I love living in a 'patriarchy'
- Thread starter lepustimidus
- Start date
http://www.dictionaryfordads.com/custodyanddivorce.htm
I love being a man in a society where males have all the benefits. Oh, wait...
Huh, you care about money that much? That's the unfair part, the money? And by the way, aren't those findings from a 1988 census? :bugeye:
Sounds like a 'patriarchy' to me. If men want support from the mothers of their children they should get on the ball and take them to court and stay on them, like a lot of women do. My uncle's ex wife is always on him. And he were to default for too long you'd best believe they'd be back in court. So she could have his wages garnished, she doesn't play. So if you want your money you got to work for it.
Women don't NEED protection they just don't want to have do it all alone. So if you can tap another source of income why wouldn't you? Men need to push their egos to the side and think about their kids if they want full custody, especially if he doesn't have enough money to support his kids and himself on. Who cares what your neighbors' think.
Orleander:
Do you tell that to women who bitch about the gender pay gap? Inequality is inequality is inequality, no matter how trivial you may feel the inequality may be. Personally, I think that money would be pretty damn important to a single parent.
I also like how it blows that myth of 'dead-beat dads' out of the water. The image of a 'dead-beat dad' is a common negative stereotype used by our feminised society to belittle men. "God damn men, won't even be responsible for their own kids. To hell with em, garnish their wages, the bastards!"
I also think feminists ought to explain how a society which is a patriarchy actually disadvantages men in some arenas. And if indeed there is an attitude of reluctance amongst men to stand up for their rights in regards to parenting, shouldn't we institute social programs encouraging them to do so? Instead of just saying "Tough shit"?
Do you tell that to women who bitch about the gender pay gap? Inequality is inequality is inequality, no matter how trivial you may feel the inequality may be. Personally, I think that money would be pretty damn important to a single parent.
I also like how it blows that myth of 'dead-beat dads' out of the water. The image of a 'dead-beat dad' is a common negative stereotype used by our feminised society to belittle men. "God damn men, won't even be responsible for their own kids. To hell with em, garnish their wages, the bastards!"
I also think feminists ought to explain how a society which is a patriarchy actually disadvantages men in some arenas. And if indeed there is an attitude of reluctance amongst men to stand up for their rights in regards to parenting, shouldn't we institute social programs encouraging them to do so? Instead of just saying "Tough shit"?
Cutie:
So in a patriarchy, men don't necessarily always have an advantage over women? Interesting.
So in a patriarchy, men don't necessarily always have an advantage over women? Interesting.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
I agree with you in part. I think some men get screwed in divorce cases and custody cases and around issues of child support payment. But the other person has a point. Mothers are considered the main parent, the father is still seen as the wage earner. This developed out of a patriarchal system where women were thought to have limited abilities and potential roles. Parenting was seen as their job. Men who truly want to have equal time with their kids after a divorce are in more danger than mothers. The system is still skewed.
Orleander:
Child custody is pretty important. I'm focusing on child support because of how often the 'deadbeat dad' stereotype is pushed by society.
Simon Ander:
Perhaps the biggest problem I have with the concept of 'patriarchy' is that men were, and still are, treated unfavourably in many arenas of life, which conflicts with the notion that men were a privileged gender. Certainly males had privileges, but then so did females (eg. more authority over the children). Males were also forced to adopt gender specific unpleasant responsibilities (getting conscripted to fight in pointless wars, being given the burden of providing material wealth for the family).
I think it would be more accurate to say that in some arenas, women were disadvantaged, while in other arenas they had significant advantages. The same is also true for men.
Child custody is pretty important. I'm focusing on child support because of how often the 'deadbeat dad' stereotype is pushed by society.
Simon Ander:
Perhaps the biggest problem I have with the concept of 'patriarchy' is that men were, and still are, treated unfavourably in many arenas of life, which conflicts with the notion that men were a privileged gender. Certainly males had privileges, but then so did females (eg. more authority over the children). Males were also forced to adopt gender specific unpleasant responsibilities (getting conscripted to fight in pointless wars, being given the burden of providing material wealth for the family).
I think it would be more accurate to say that in some arenas, women were disadvantaged, while in other arenas they had significant advantages. The same is also true for men.
one point MH, if orleander is correct and thats from 1988 could the reason for the difference have to do with the courts previous opinions that the defult is that the children go with the mother?
Ie this difference could relate to the fact that in order for the father to have the children the mother would have to be either:
a) dead
b) disapeared with no ability to contact
c) a drug fucked zombie with no money
d) in prision
Ie this difference could relate to the fact that in order for the father to have the children the mother would have to be either:
a) dead
b) disapeared with no ability to contact
c) a drug fucked zombie with no money
d) in prision
So, women having "authority over children" (but only when a male didn't want to exercise his authority, which was always assumed to override any woman's wish) somehow made up for having little to no control over finances, little to no control over who they married, little to no control over where they lived, no effective possibility of getting a job at the same level as a man or being paid equal pay for equal work, no right to vote, etc. etc.?
As for the wars, who made the decisions to go to war? Men or women? Well, seeing as women weren't allowed into politics, I'm guessing it was the men.
Hmmm....
James:
I've always had the impression that it was the woman who had the greater authority over the children, given that she was the one who raised them and all. A similar attitude is held in Islamic countries (which are what feminists would dub 'patriarchal'), where the mother has a tremendous amount of influence over the children.
Um, what? Simply because women didn't earn the money does not mean that they weren't the ones who determined how it was spent.
Again, what? Being able to choose who they married was one of the most powerful tools available in a woman's arsenal.
Hardly.
Correct. But then there was no effective possibility of a man getting to spend equal time with his kids.
Yep.
I never denied that there were disadvantages to being a woman, James R. Perhaps you need to re-read my previous post?
1. Blatantly false. Women were in positions of political power, and they did choose to go to war.
2. One does not need to be officially in a position of political power in order to have a strong influence over whether one goes to war. Do you mean to tell me that male politicians never listen to their wives?
Also note that women throughout history have played a very important role in encouraging their men to go to war, whether it was Spartan women telling their husbands and sons to "Either return carrying this shield in victory or carried on the shield in death.", or British womenhanding out 'white feathers of cowardice' to coerce British men to serve in the imperialistic British Army.
3. Your point is a complete non-sequitur. A man started a war != it's not a disadvantage to be forced to fight in a war. Women were spared the horror of conscription, and that's a hefty gender specific advantage, IMHO.
I've always had the impression that it was the woman who had the greater authority over the children, given that she was the one who raised them and all. A similar attitude is held in Islamic countries (which are what feminists would dub 'patriarchal'), where the mother has a tremendous amount of influence over the children.
Um, what? Simply because women didn't earn the money does not mean that they weren't the ones who determined how it was spent.
Again, what? Being able to choose who they married was one of the most powerful tools available in a woman's arsenal.
Hardly.
Correct. But then there was no effective possibility of a man getting to spend equal time with his kids.
Yep.
I never denied that there were disadvantages to being a woman, James R. Perhaps you need to re-read my previous post?
1. Blatantly false. Women were in positions of political power, and they did choose to go to war.
2. One does not need to be officially in a position of political power in order to have a strong influence over whether one goes to war. Do you mean to tell me that male politicians never listen to their wives?
Also note that women throughout history have played a very important role in encouraging their men to go to war, whether it was Spartan women telling their husbands and sons to "Either return carrying this shield in victory or carried on the shield in death.", or British womenhanding out 'white feathers of cowardice' to coerce British men to serve in the imperialistic British Army.
3. Your point is a complete non-sequitur. A man started a war != it's not a disadvantage to be forced to fight in a war. Women were spared the horror of conscription, and that's a hefty gender specific advantage, IMHO.
Wrong. Women need men to protect them; disagree if you wish, but nature will not accommodate for your sensitivities. I'm tired of this largely North American rhetoric, usually echoed by feminists and the like: "I can be their mother and their father". No you can't! Women should find compatible men as partners, rather than settling with the first dick they meet. A single mother cannot raise her children as properly as a mother who is supported by her husband. Men are the head of the household, and they are protectors. For you to imply that a single mother can get it all done by herself is a feminist fairy tail.
Kadark
lepustimidus:
I think you need to nail down what great past era you're talking about, exactly.
When was the golden age when patriarchy was great for all men and women?
I've always had the impression that it was a case of "Don't be naughty, Junior, or I'll tell your father when he gets home from work, and then you'll really be in trouble."
If you don't have control of the bank account, you don't control the finances.
Marriage has traditionally been a tool for cementing alliances between families. The Patriarchs always dictated who their daughters would marry, and the choices were often political. Love had nothing to do with it; nor did a woman's choice. Read your Jane Austen if you need some examples. Or the bible. Pick your era.
The difference is: some people had choice while others had their choice restricted.
Women didn't get the vote anywhere much before 1900. And they couldn't sit in any Parliament, either.
Why would a male politician listen to a wife who spend all her time at home with the kids? She hasn't had the opportunity to get a good education or to participate in any political process (forbidden by the patriarchy), so she knows very little about politics. It would be easy to dismiss any opinion she might have on the prudency of going to war.
Who wrote these histories? Men or women?
Women are still "spared" from being given leading roles in the military in many places today. Even if they want them.
I think you need to nail down what great past era you're talking about, exactly.
When was the golden age when patriarchy was great for all men and women?
I've always had the impression that it was a case of "Don't be naughty, Junior, or I'll tell your father when he gets home from work, and then you'll really be in trouble."
If you don't have control of the bank account, you don't control the finances.
Marriage has traditionally been a tool for cementing alliances between families. The Patriarchs always dictated who their daughters would marry, and the choices were often political. Love had nothing to do with it; nor did a woman's choice. Read your Jane Austen if you need some examples. Or the bible. Pick your era.
The difference is: some people had choice while others had their choice restricted.
Women didn't get the vote anywhere much before 1900. And they couldn't sit in any Parliament, either.
Why would a male politician listen to a wife who spend all her time at home with the kids? She hasn't had the opportunity to get a good education or to participate in any political process (forbidden by the patriarchy), so she knows very little about politics. It would be easy to dismiss any opinion she might have on the prudency of going to war.
Who wrote these histories? Men or women?
Women are still "spared" from being given leading roles in the military in many places today. Even if they want them.
"Women need men like fish need bicycles."
I think you're making up this supposed "rhetoric".
What should men like you do? Do you just like to dictate to women, or do you have standards men ought to follow as well?
Got any evidence of that?
Old-fashioned nonsense. It's the 21st century. Get with the programme and stop pining for the olden days.
Many single mothers raise their children to be happy and successful. What more do you want?
James:
Any era prior to women's suffrage is fair game for comparisons, wouldn't you agree? Although to be fair, many feminists claim that even today society is still patriarchal.
Throughout history, there have been advantages and disadvantages attached to the male and female gender roles.
Women were responsible for raising the children, and hence their discipline. Women had greater authority over the children.
Simply because the man bought home the paycheck does not mean that the woman didn't have control of the bank account. And even if she didn't, she could still control the finances via proxy (ie. through the man).
That's merely one of marriage's purposes. Marriage has also been a tool used by women to obtain financial security and social standing, which is why they were so keen to marry wealthy and powerful individuals.
Nope.
Nope again.
Three strikes, you're out. In some cases, the woman didn't have a choice. But then again, in some cases the husband didn't have a choice.
So men had a choice as to whether they could be the primary caregiver, or the breadwinner? Bullshit. The burden of providing for the family was placed squarely on the shoulders of the man.
So Queen Elizabeth I didn't have any political power?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Never been married, have you, James? Well, here's a scenario more relevant to you, which might help you understand. Imagine you are making a major decision that your mother has a personal interest in. Now, imagine you're living with her. And you're sleeping in the same bed. And she's raising your children. How much influence do you think your mother will have on the decision you make?
Women have historically played a huge role in influencing the political decisions of their husbands. That's not speculation or opinion, that's a simple fact.
Not true.
Again, not true.
Not if you have to sleep with her. Unless you like sleeping with penguins, that is.
Relevance? Do you deny that Spartan women told their husbands and sons to "Either return carrying this shield in victory or carried on the shield in death.", and that British women handed out 'white feathers of cowardice' to coerce British men to serve in the imperialistic British Army.”?
The fact of the matter is that in many cases, mothers, daughters and sisters encouraged their menfolk to go to war. So much for women being pacifists!
Um, how is that relevant to the observation that men, and only men, were required to take up arms and fight in senseless wars?
Any era prior to women's suffrage is fair game for comparisons, wouldn't you agree? Although to be fair, many feminists claim that even today society is still patriarchal.
Throughout history, there have been advantages and disadvantages attached to the male and female gender roles.
Women were responsible for raising the children, and hence their discipline. Women had greater authority over the children.
Simply because the man bought home the paycheck does not mean that the woman didn't have control of the bank account. And even if she didn't, she could still control the finances via proxy (ie. through the man).
That's merely one of marriage's purposes. Marriage has also been a tool used by women to obtain financial security and social standing, which is why they were so keen to marry wealthy and powerful individuals.
Nope.
Nope again.
Three strikes, you're out. In some cases, the woman didn't have a choice. But then again, in some cases the husband didn't have a choice.
So men had a choice as to whether they could be the primary caregiver, or the breadwinner? Bullshit. The burden of providing for the family was placed squarely on the shoulders of the man.
So Queen Elizabeth I didn't have any political power?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Never been married, have you, James? Well, here's a scenario more relevant to you, which might help you understand. Imagine you are making a major decision that your mother has a personal interest in. Now, imagine you're living with her. And you're sleeping in the same bed. And she's raising your children. How much influence do you think your mother will have on the decision you make?
Women have historically played a huge role in influencing the political decisions of their husbands. That's not speculation or opinion, that's a simple fact.
Not true.
Again, not true.
Not if you have to sleep with her. Unless you like sleeping with penguins, that is.
Relevance? Do you deny that Spartan women told their husbands and sons to "Either return carrying this shield in victory or carried on the shield in death.", and that British women handed out 'white feathers of cowardice' to coerce British men to serve in the imperialistic British Army.”?
The fact of the matter is that in many cases, mothers, daughters and sisters encouraged their menfolk to go to war. So much for women being pacifists!
Um, how is that relevant to the observation that men, and only men, were required to take up arms and fight in senseless wars?
In case you wanted a concrete example, James:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_I_of_the_Two_Sicilies
God damn patriarchy, never giving women any political power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_I_of_the_Two_Sicilies
God damn patriarchy, never giving women any political power.
How about Suleiman the Magnificent, Sultan of the most powerful empire in Europe at the time? Surely he wasn't influenced by a mere woman in an Islamic patriarchy?