that 50-50 res is AWFUL for kids & mothers and women should fight back?

[rageagainstthe50res]

OK, hands up, i name-changed, because this is so emotionally charged and I don't want to be alienated from my usual threads.

BUT, AIBU to think that actually 50-50 parenting is fucking awful for kids? I mean, can you imagine living your life between two houses? Just how disorientating and unsettling it would be?

And AIBU to think that women have given away too many of their own rights in the name of 'fathers' rights?' I LOVE my father, and my DS loves hers, even though we're not together but in 99% of all parenting cases I know it is the woman who does the laundry, the packed lunches, the kiss it betters, the costumes for the nativity.

We don't have gender equality in this country - salary discrepancies, violence against women, flagrant misogyny in the media etc. Yet the few rights we do hold - that we should be the primary parent because we grow our children inside us and feed them from our own bodies, we now glibly throw away to 'fathers'. I AM NOT SAYING FATHERS SHOULD BE DENIED ACCESS TO THEIR CHILDREN. But I do think 50-50 is too much. And you're telling me that women don't HATE having their kids only 50% of the time? I'm sure most of them are absolutely miserable. A weekend off, great, but 50-50 just sounds heinous.
REally, I'm not being an arse, I'm just massively curious.

Yup, that's one of the problems, distinguishing between aggressive prostate cancer that will kill you and prostate cancer that will just rumble on - the version that you die with, not from.

Although actually there are similarities with breast screening. It is likely that many older women with small slow growing cancers might well have died (of other causes) with them undetected, and the issue of ductal carcinoma in situ is also very tricky. As a result there is considerable debate as to whether the screening program causes more harm than good. On the one hand early detection undoubtedly saves lives, but there is also almost certainly over treatment too. Trouble is that we didn't know about those small slow growing and DCIS masses before the program was initiated, and it's virtually impossible to research them now for ethical reasons (a watch and wait arm is required for any trial, but won't get through any ethics committee). However faster prognosis and more sensitive tests have at least reduced a lot of the associated anxiety. Prostate screening research has a long way to go before any screening test can be widely introduced, at least under public health rather than insurance based systems.

Re the discrimination it is perfectly possible for any individual to be discriminated against (for example there was a case here where a man won a case for being discriminated against when looking for employment at a care home, where it is very clear he was passed over because he was a man), and it's always bad IMO.

Come off it Harpy, you know you are talking absolute rubbish.

But just in case you really are that deluded, just ask yourself, how many world leaders are women? Look at the picture of the G8 summit. How many cabinet members are women? How many directors or board members of FT100 companies? How many judges are female?

What proportion of wealth in this country and round the world is held by women? Which sex suffers entirely avoidable deaths in childbirth and serious medical complications that go untreated due to crap medical facilities in much of the world?

As for war, don't be ridiculous. Women and child civilians are the worst affected population in any war zone. Your pathetic arguments wouldn't sound so funny if you tried them on victims of gang rape in any war zone you care to mention. While we are on sexual violence, guess which gender is subject to modern-day slavery - trafficking into prostitution? (Hint - it ain't the ones with the dicks.)

And it's hardly our fault that women were only allowed to join the military in subservient roles until very recently, and still aren't allowed to fight on the front line. Unless your world-view is Alice in Wonderland logic and you seriously believe it's women who somehow force men to ban women from the front line?

Perhaps you could name a country where women got the right to vote before men? Or maybe you'd like to live in Switzerland, where women only achieved that right in 1973 IIRC?

To argue that men as a gender are victims of discrimination is ridiculous and flies in the face of all the evidence. You are claiming that black is white - and failing to come up with any decent evidence for your case.

Your points are about as daft as proposing that the real victims of slavery were the slave traders. Do you think the captains who threw manacled slaves overboard in order to claim on the insurance were the real victims and the slaves don't count? Do you think it was women who ran the slave trade, by any chance?

Agingoth, its also men who assume the glass cellar roles. ie the dangerous, hazardous, unsavory professions. As another analogy, consider how many deaths have occurred in the military since WW1. Now consider the male/female ratio.

Women have been trying to join the military for decades and been refused so your point on wars is bollocks frankly. And I agree with edam's point re. women and children also suffering in war despite not being on the front line- where I reckon a lot of women would be if they were only allowed the privilege of killing themselves for their country...

I actually agree in a certain sense that men also suffer from gender construction in that they are socialised to be 'hard', unemotional, 'rational'- and violent. All that engenders its own suffering. But men have power and I personally think that what men want, or allow themselves to want, is what this country (and world) gets. Hence, male health problems get less attention because men avoid appearing 'weak' by reporting symptoms etc. And women get left on the whole with the kids because generally it is what men want. Not all men, and things do seem to be changing- but if men had wanted to do the dirty unpaid jobs such as childcare and elder care in recent decades they'd be a. paid and b. high status. And not left to women.

So Shrieking, how do you respond to my point about caring work having been made the province of women because on the whole men haven't historically wanted to do it? Presume you're going to blame those evil women?

Your point about army participation is incomprehensible. Clearly women (and gay men) have not been allowed to reach the levels they have wanted to in the military as multiple discrimination cases attest- and if they are so privileged why can't they go on the front line and be allowed to martyr themselves for their country? I don't think you can put that one down to a female conspiracy.

Western masculinity is constructed in certain ways which may well be detrimental to men as well as women. The power of the construct of masculinity as bodily hardness, sacrifice and power is so immense that men (and women) choose to believe in it as 'nature' and often behave accordingly. Thus men see their bodies as instruments of state violence and sacrifice themselves and other men in war while making it difficult if not impossible for women to do the same- because women are constructed as domestic creatures in need of protection. This is a very different issue from discrimination itself. For a start it takes power to discriminate- power, economic and social, which by and large women still don't have and men do.

Btw Edam didn't say you 'see things in black and white', she said you were saying that black was white. Again, very different thing.

Shrieking edam didn't say think of any women who have ever reached positions of power. She was talking about right now. Of course there have been women in positions of power and authority, but they are largely memorable because they were exceptions. One of the women you cite is dead, some were last in positions of power decades ago, and three likely achieved power because they were married to/were widows of men who had been in power previously. whereas men hold most positions of power everywhere.

So the cabinet right now, where there are five women to 18 men (oh and there are an extra six ministers, all men who regularly attend too).
The G8 right now (where at the last meeting the "family photo" as they term it shows one woman and nine men). The FTSE right now, where there are four female CEOs.

Oh do put a sock in it shrieking. You haven't actually come up with one example of actual discrimination against men, just pointed out that most soldiers are men and it can be a bit of a dangerous job.

Go and look up discrimination in the dictionary, it's a tad more complicated than you seem to realise. And while you are there, look up oppression, too.

Why are you so determined to make out that men are victims? What is it about victimhood that so appeals to you?

Luckily we no longer have to behave like animals, and that initial bonding stuff is very transitory considering people's lifespans. Plus you don't need to breastfeed in order to bond. Men, non breastfeeding women, adoptive parents all seem to do just fine.

Personally I think that individual men can be just as much the victim of the way that society is set up, but no, I don't think the fact that we have a cadre of front line soldiers who are only allowed to be men is evidence that society thinks that men are disposable. Firstly because service is totally voluntary in the UK, and secondly because traditionally the front line were mainly working class, so the disposability if you will was more the upper classes of the lower. Discrimination as you so rightly say coming in many forms.

There has been much progress in the UK and much of the western world, mostly coming from economic need rather than political will power IMO. That there is terrible inequity and women can have terrible lives in other parts of the world does not in my mind mean that I should not look at my children (male and female) and wish the same opportunities and success for both of them. There is work to be done if my son feels he can't do something caring or my daughter something powerful should they so choose, and my aim is to bring them up so that if that is where their skills and aptitudes lie they shouldn't limit themselves because of expectations (their own or other peoples).

As to why so few women reach the top of their chosen career paths (even in fields dominated by women, such as teaching) I think the reasons are diverse. However when even women who don't have children find it difficult to break that glass ceiling, and are in general paid less than men, I cannot see that men are in any bad position.

Personally I am the career woman in my family and my dh is a SAHD at the moment, but we remain fairly exceptional. Once that split becomes more normalised I think things really might change.

Well that's fine then, because in general I don't think that when people are discussing discrimination they are talking about "sheer brutality" endured by anyone anywhere. Because rape and violent attack are not generally considered as issues of discrimination.

Frankly the fact that I produced oxytocin for a few months has fuck all to do with my capabilities in my working life.

I don't understand your women should "accept" jobs line. Jobs aren't given out, so how can they be rejected? Going into a world dominated by either sex (or any other group if you are not part of that group) is very difficult, as much for men wanting to be primary school teachers as for women wanting to build houses, although on the whole most female dominated work places don't have posters of scantily clad men up on the wall, or require heavy drinking or visits to strip clubs as part of making your way. Not sure why you think construction is unsavory in any case. Or why working with sewage would necessarily be worse than working in a care home (almost totally done by women). Both deal with shit after all. I suspect that neither would be cited as first choice careers.

Shrieking has a very interesting style of argument....accusing the 'other side' of making claims they haven't actually made is one interesting tactic.

I never actually said it was a privilege to martyr oneself for one's country. Merely that men have historically chosen this role for themselves, not women.

Your point about making sperm and eliminating men is sheer hysteria frankly. You remind me of evangelical Christians who respond to arguments about homosexuality by saying that it will lead to depopulation.

No one wants rid of men here. I have two sons myself, a father (no less!) and am very fond of several men, lest you tar me as a 70s radical maneating feminist.

Yes of course women have collaborated in patriarchal systems. That is because they are systems. They are not perpetuated by men being evil or women- but by the very complex workings of power which create gender difference.

Your argument about women being bonded by nature to children contradicts your other points in favour of father's rights, don't you think?

Hope you are well... Happy new Year!

Hi ilovemydog!

all well thanks (but iced in!) Happy New Year to you...xx

yeah, because the streets are full of packs of predatory businesswomen groping and leering at men young and old on the street...

Shrieking you are good value and I admire your tenacity but you sound as if you are living in one of those SF films where Women Have Taken Over the World and enslaved all the men...

you have got me on the feminism SH, but I have moved on a bit from the Female Eunuch...

Men's issues are a big thing in feminism now- how boys get trained into violence and away from emotion and caring etc. I do think they suffer too, but in different ways. I have sons so being accused of 'hating' men is very, very serious for me.

Well of course discrimination is part of the problem, but you were suggesting that because there were women suffering from violence in some parts of the world then in the west we shouldn't claim there is discrimination against women at all - just bias. Which I thought was a bit meaningless. Just because it's terrible somewhere else and not very good here doesn't mean that not very good is acceptable.

As far as your biology stuff is concerned I'm lost. You appeared to be suggesting that the reason why women have a raw deal is down to oxytocin, but then you say that that just speeds up bonding, implying that it's not really very important (and I agree).

Of course not all women will suffer from discrimination. Some will be very happy to take the traditional caring role. And of course some men are discriminated against, and that's not a good thing. But I would argue that the social conditioning comes from our patriarchal history, which given that it was run by and for men (granted rich men) is likely to have in general served them well.

I do actually agree with you shrieking on the point that women are complicit in engendering male privilege/power/violence/unemotionality. You see it everywhere. Women 'gatekeeping' their domestic control and control over children- I've seen a number of men be bullied that way. Thatcher types separating themselves from other women in order to align themselves with traditionally male power structures.

It is far more complex than men beating up women, or the other way round. On the whole though, it is indisputable that the power balance in the West and elsewhere lies with men. Not all men. Just men in general. This does not mean that men don't suffer from masculine conditioning or that some men don't get beaten up by violent wives etc.