Equality

There is a widespread myth that Feminism has something to do with "equality" or "equity".  You often see signs advocating "Equality For Women", for example.  That must mean "equality/equity with men", if it means anything at all.  In that case, men and women must have an equal right to choose the issues where "equality" or "equity" must be achieved.  Take the issue of child custody, for example.

During the August 2013 crisis over infected baby milk formula, New Zealand Labour Party leader David Shearer referred to what this meant for Kiwi Mums -- but later he corrected himself, referring to "Mums and Dads".  The West is gradually acknowledging the fact that the Feminist rhetoric about "Equality" is a double-edged sword: It can be used to wrest rights for men away from women -- not just the other way around!  However, that means that men have never had all the rights and privileges that Feminists claim that they have had -- otherwise men would not be able to gain anything by using "Equality" rhetoric.

 

Statistics

Now the Feminists are complaining that the Family Court is allegedly approaching equality in custody decisions (Donna Chisholm, "Is the Family Court Unfair to Mothers?", North & South, August 2013).   This women's magazine (the top editorial staff are all women) stated that, in 2012" only" 55% of mothers won day-to-day care (i.e. custody) orders, and shared custody was awarded in 12% of cases. 

But hold on!!  That means that 55% of fathers who go to court -- as opposed to only 33% of mothers -- end up being non-custodial parents!  That is nowhere near equality, and if that is being "unfair to mothers", then women have a very high standard of privilege that they regard as their birthright.  As the advertising slogan puts it, women can "have it all"  -- they can keep all their past privileges and abolish men's privileges as well!

 

 

The Couple as a System

The article quotes a Feminist as complaining that, in intact families, mothers

"are the ones who are running the household and are held to account for the quality of that work.... but suddenly when we get into disputed post-separation arrangements, we think 50-50 should be the way to go." 

That is an incredibly weak argument. 

1. First of all, a mother is not "held to account for the quality of" her housework.  The husband is not the wife's boss.  Indeed, if a mother regularly does bad housework and gets "held to account for it", that may lead to domestic violence (and the arrest of the husband) and/or the breakup of the relationship! 

2. Secondly, if a mother is a housewife before a separation, should she not be allowed to find work after a separation, because she was somehow only suited to being a housewife! 

3. Thirdly, why is running a household so difficult that a man could not do it? 

4. Fourthly, a live-in relationship is a system, where role-specialisation takes place for various reasons, such as efficiency.  If one partner specialises in running the household, that is usually because that frees up the other party to concentrate on earning income for the household.  The latter has not suddenly lost all interest in the houshold and everyone it it, but has only agreed, pragmatically, to take on a certain role for the benefit of the entire household!

 

 

Violence

Domestic violence, like sexual abuse of children and rape, never used to be the fodder of mass media commentary.  The Feminists popularised these issues, as part of a generalised witch-hunt against all men -- making all men out to be stereotypical criminals, of one sort or another.  In fact, however, women are just as culpable of domestic violence as men are.  See http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm .  However, we do not live in a sane society, so female offenders are seldom complained about, arrested, prosecuted or convicted.  Females get more leniently treated by the justice system, and the Police and the Prime Minister blatantly support the sexist, discriminatory White Ribbon Campaign.  See the also following question on Yahoo! Answers:

http://nz.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmI2KByK5iWczjxX43yDco_JZwx.;_ylv=3?qid=20130808090509AA6Lwyq

"Why do some men use excuses for hitting women!?
I hear or read about some men who make lame excuses for hitting a woman such as "she provoked it" "It was an accident" and the WORST one "she hit me first!". First of all can I say that NO man should EVER lay his hands on a woman. Secondly to all men who hit women back when she strikes you first, you're not men. You are little p*ssies. Men are generally stronger than women so therefore if a woman hits you, just take it! Don't hit her back because that's cowardly! Most women are fragile and a single punch from a man can do some serious damage. Even a slap could bruise her. I cannot stand men who abuse women in relationships. They only do it because they know she is in a difficult position and is unlikely to leave him due to various reasons. Don't bother calling me a feminist or complaining about women being violent to men. Any man who is scared of a woman physically hurting him is a wimp."

Either men and women are equal, or they are not.  It is a total farce, if women are allowed to make huge political gains on the back of a pretence that they want "Equality", and then sexist idiots like the Police, the Prime Minister and the author of the above question are simultaneously allowed to promote a double standard on domestic violence.  This penalises men, by making them reluctant to report female domestic violence, and unlikely to be taken seriously if they do.  These leaves them with the alternatives of fighting or fleeing.  The former will create yet another "violent man" statistic, and the latter will break up the relationship.  No man should have to put up with the emotional and physical impact of being hit by a woman -- even if she is not bigger than him, even if she has not trained in martial arts, even if she is not using a weapon, and even if she did not hit him when he was off-guard or asleep!

New Zealand Family Law has been severely influenced by Feminist propaganda on domestic violence, which is not evidence-based.  The North & South article points out that -- quite rightly -- the Law may be starting to separate the issue of spousal violence from the issue of child custody, but we have a long way to go before sanity prevails on the issue of domestic violence.