FADING FEMINISM

The other day at work, some colleagues and I were discussing a chain restaurant known for its scantily clad waitresses. I was taken aback for a moment. "They have the best sports bar in my area," one person said. "I hear they have great Buffalo wings," said another. It was a moment of disconnect. "But how can anyone go to places like that?" I asked. "What about the objectification of women's bodies?" The what of the who?

My colleagues, many of them young enough to be my offspring, gave me puzzled, bemused looks. "This is one of those feminist things, isn't it?" someone asked. "Yes, I'm a feminist. Yes, I did consciousness raising," I said. "What's consciousness raising?" It was my turn to be startled. Hasn't everyone at least heard about consciousness raising? A quick survey of the people in my office revealed that no one, male or female, under the age of 30 had even heard of what in my day was so common we called it "CR." One colleague, smart and Harvard educated, said, "Are you talking about feminism, or are you talking about the reeducation the North Koreans did?"

I tried to explain. I felt as if I was talking about butter-churning or cloth diapers. How could I describe these little groups of women who met once a week in the 1960s and 1970s, just to talk about their lives, their assumptions, their feelings as women? In my CR group, I remember one woman announced, with some chagrin, that she had thrown out all her clothes and bought a completely new wardrobe for college. We all agreed that she might have overdone her need to please.

Did CR change my life? Yes, no doubt. But then again, nearly everything changed my life when I was young. My group met in the spring of 1976. Since I was a student living on the campus of a public college, some of the topics we discussed didn't really resonate with me. I had no spouse or boyfriend to pick up after. I couldn't contribute much about raising children or about my career choices or about putting anyone but myself first. But, still - in its essence, CR did exactly what it was intended to do - it raised my slumbering consciousness about all sorts of things: the kinds of clothes women choose to wear, how we see our bodies, what we seek in our lives, and how much we care about how others see us. It made me think about my choice of a major in elementary education, about my cheerleading days in high school, about my relationships with guys. It made me think about my obsession with dieting. I didn't become strident; I didn't turn into a man-hater, but I did open my eyes. Eventually, I dropped my major, which I had picked mainly because my mother had been a kindergarten teacher. I read authors like Susan Brownmiller and Betty Friedan. I announced that I would never have children.

Fast-forward to today. The children I swore I wouldn't have are almost full-fledged adults. I have a job I love. I'm confident in most situations. Some people would say that life is different now, that no young woman needs her consciousness raised in 2006. Except that today's "Seventeen" magazine looks a whole lot like it always did - shopping, hair, and, on a recent cover, a promo to the story, "Flirt Your Way Into His Heart."

The young women in my workplace see themselves, no doubt, as equal to the men. But when they get pregnant and have babies, guess what happens? They're still the ones who drop out of the workforce, or work part time, or, more rarely, go back to work full time but are overwhelmed with guilt. I sure don't see that same angst in men too often.

Maybe it's time for me to set up a little consciousness-raising group with the women in my office. We could talk about TV shows that emphasize bone-thin models and makeovers, about what it's like to raise children, about how we see our lives playing out. Would they show up, or would they see this as an attempt to indoctrinate them? No one in my office these days calls herself a feminist, after all. I wonder if they would support an Equal Rights Amendment.

Source



Right Cause, Wrong Approach

Last Thursday, The National Center for Men filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of Matt Dubay. The NCM has nicknamed the suit 'Roe v. Wade for Men' because it seeks to allow men a legal right to decline the responsibilities of fatherhood to the same degree that women can currently decline motherhood through abortion: that is, absolutely. The 25-year-old Dubay wants to relinquish all legal connection to a daughter borne last year by an ex-girlfriend who had assured him she was infertile. Specifically, he doesn't want to pay $500 a month in child support.

The suit will almost certainly fail in court; NCM probably knows this. The real purpose is to stir discussion of a neglected issue: the rights of men in reproduction. That is a laudable goal but, in pursuing it, the lawsuit stumbles by presenting those rights in the worst possible light.

The lawsuit's essential message is correct: the ongoing discussion of reproduction often proceeds as though men do not exist, especially regarding abortion. The marginalization of men in abortion is somewhat natural; as a matter of blunt biology, it is a woman's body. Unless the man has entered into a contract with the woman, she has a presumptive right of self control that trumps his claim. Otherwise, the man could force her to have an abortion or to become breeding stock.

The marginalization of men cannot be similarly justified, however, once a child is born and three entirely autonomous human beings exist. At this point, in my opinion, the worst inequity toward men in our society occurs. Men are held legally responsible for their children's support even when they are denied visitation. In essence, fathers have responsibilities without rights and that is a travesty, both legally and morally. Fathers live with broken hearts; children struggle without the love and guidance of both parents.

Responsible men should have a right to be active fathers; children should know both parents. That is the single strongest argument that advocates of men's and father's rights can advance. It opens the hearts and minds of all reasonable, caring people -- male or female, pro-choice or pro-life. And, having accepted the justice of one argument, people are more likely to listen sympathetically to others.

Unfortunately the case that NCM has chosen to spotlight harms rather than advances that argument. The lawsuit conflates and confuses the role of men in abortion with that of men toward existing children. By hyping the lawsuit as 'Roe v. Wade for Men,' NCM may well have attracted media attention but it also inextricably associates the suit with the single most divisive issue in society -- abortion.

Pro-choice advocates will be immediately alienated by NCM's press release, which states, "We [NCM] will ask a United States district court judge to apply the principles of reproductive choice, as articulated in Roe vs. Wade, to men. We will ask that men be granted equal protection of the laws which safeguard the right of women to make family planning decisions after sex." Such language is far broader than necessary if NCM's goal is merely to allow men to relinquish fatherhood. Indeed, the language does not aim at the right of a man to merely remove himself from an unwanted pregnancy but the right to be involved in "family planning decisions."

On the other extreme, pro-life advocates will be immediately alienated by the specific father being championed. These advocates are motivated by a desire to protect children, which fetuses constitute for them. Matt Dubay wishes to abandon his daughter, not protect her.

Whether or not you believe men should have a right to abandonment, Dubay is not a sympathetic figure around which to rally. He is the anti-father. He is the worst possible face to put on the cause of men's rights. Dubay is a bad choice on other grounds. The NCM press release states, "Matt insists that the child's mother repeatedly assured him she could not get pregnant and, also, Matt says that she knew he did not want to have a child with her." In short, the suit argues one side of a 'he said/she said' scenario in which the man did not act to prevent conception.

Preventing an unwanted pregnancy is the obligation of every human being, male or female. To rely on chance or the word of another is to default on that obligation. Anyone who pushes past both the abortion slugfest and Dubay's unsympathetic nature may arrive at the discussion that should have been clearly enunciated by the lawsuit; legal responsibilities should have corresponding legal rights. What are those responsibilities, what are those rights? Even when these questions are clearly asked, the lawsuit's answers are counterproductive. It seeks to extend Roe v. Wade, which even pro-choice advocates recognize as 'bad' and ultimately unsustainable law. If successful, the lawsuit would create more bureaucracy and government in an area (family law) where bureaucracy is the problem. For example, 'abandonment agencies' would be needed to handle the inevitable counseling requirement, the need for parental consent by underaged fathers, the paperwork on hearings required before the real papers could be signed, and so on.

A better approach would be to repeal laws and policies that enforce responsibilities without rights. Dismantle bureaucracies and encourage private agreement on family matters, preferably before children arrive. In the absence of agreement, promote arbitration so that courts become the last option and not the first resort.

The NCM lawsuit is a bad case that would result in worse law. But, perhaps because the suit will fail, that's not what bothers me the most about it. What bothers me most: it is an insult to every alienated father who desperately seeks to be a parent to his child. Why is NCM championing the anti-father when so many men ache for nothing more than the sight of their children's faces?

Source



We have all got a gambling problem, which is the idiots telling us to stop

By Mick Hume from Britain

My name is Mick, and I have a gambling problem. My problem is that I have hardly backed a winner during this week's Cheltenham Festival. There are many fellow-sufferers; the bookmakers reportedly pocketed 50 million pounds on Wednesday alone. Yet we will be back today, trying to pick the winner of the Cheltenham Gold Cup.

This might make us ordinary punters, quite liderallee losers. What it does not make us is a crowd of vulnerable victims and potential gambling addicts in need of professional intervention to keep us from the knacker's yard.

Yet all we hear about is the supposed boom in "problem gambling". This week's report that the Government plans to open more casinos prompted protests from worthies such as Colonel Vic Poke, of the Salvation Army, and a "Professor of Gambling Studies" (and they accuse punters of wasting time and money). Not to be outdone, the government-appointed Gambling Commission outlined its new rules to promote "social responsibility in gambling" and protect "children and the vulnerable".

Government fantasies about supercasinos sparking regional economic regeneration are ludicrous (although no more so than the schemes to "regenerate" entire cities with an art gallery and caf‚). But the lectures about "socially responsible gambling" are no better.

New Labour's approach appears to be to free up the gambling laws but regulate gamblers more tightly. The Gambling Commission's rules will require casinos and betting outlets to "take a preventative approach", bombarding innocent punters with information about "how to play responsibly and where to seek help", looking out for "at-risk behaviour" and intervening to propose counselling or self-exclusion agreements, before banning "gambling addicts".

These measures say less about how to deal with the relatively few problem gamblers than about how little the authorities think of the rest of us. We are seen as essentially helpless individuals, powerless to handle risks or to prevent ourselves sliding down the slippery slope into a pit of binge drinking, obesity and irresponsible punting. Thus gambling has now been added to the growing list of "addictions", as if it were an illness requiring the men in white coats.

The authorities that want casinos to provide clients with a "reality check" should take their own advice and stop patronising punters. Incredible as it may seem to them, we do understand the odds. Adults should be free to make their own choices, including the wrong ones.

Whatever happened to having a flutter as a bit of harmless fun, a (hopefully) cheap thrill to make your heart, well, flutter in a world that runs from risks? We might do better to consider how society could offer something more meaningful to get excited about, rather than trying to sanitise our few red-blooded pastimes.

Back at Cheltenham, meanwhile, my get-out is "when in doubt, back A. P. McCoy", the Roy Keane of racing, an Irish jump jockey so single-minded in pursuit of winners it is a wonder some educated eejit has not referred him for addiction therapy.

Source