Nerdfighters

Imagine the scenario: a mother giving birth in hospital while the father of their child speeds across town on his motorbike to see their first child enter the world. But in his excitement he loses control of his bike and is fatally wounded. The midwives are informed and draw straws on who will tell mum the good news – that her baby is healthy – the bad news that the baby’s father is dead – and the even worse news that:

BECAUSE THE DAD IS DEAD, MUM IS NOW CONSIDERED TO BE A POTENTIAL THREAT TO HER CHILD, IS NOT LEGALLY A MOTHER AND CANNOT TAKE HER BABY HOME WITH HER!


Can you imagine this happening to a parent in the UK in 2012? You can’t? Well it does.

It happened in the past month to a parent in Wales whose partner died shortly after the birth of their child. The grieving parent was treated like a stranger to the baby, not allowed to take their baby home and the child protection system was invoked.

The reason the parent was considered a threat to their new born baby and not allowed to take the baby was simple – HE IS A MAN!

The hospital did nothing wrong – and by all accounts handled the issue with great professionalism and speed – ensuring the case was brought to court and a temporary order granted allowing him to take the baby home.

They were simply acting in line with UK law which considers unmarried fathers to be a potential threat to their children until vetted – as opposed to mothers who are assumed to be fit parents unless there is evidence to the contrary.




This is the kind of thing that makes men angry that "feminists" do not represent more. This is a serious case of gender inequality. My question is, why do "feminists" not seem to be caring?


Views: 1063

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yow. what a first thread to jump in on. >_> But...I had to say something. I'm not disputing your point about how widowed fathers should be able to take their newborn child home. But I am a bit disturbed by the message you take from it. As I see it, this is not 'curbing women's rights.' It's expanding mens' rights to be equal of those of a woman, which they should be. And as to Feminism...I think you have a rather stereotypical view of it. To most Feminists, the movement means EQUALITY between men and women, not that women should have more rights than men. Unfortunately there are very vocal examples of Feminists who probably fit into your viewpoint. But in an echo chamber you always hear whatever is loudest whether or not it is representative of a whole. So I guess my point is this- this rule is very, very wrong. But the way to gain support to fight it is not to antagonize people who might, in fact, be very willing to support you in this fight- women. After all, if something should happen to a mother during childbirth, wouldn't she want to be sure her child would be loved and cared for by her husband rather than go to the state?

As I see it, this is not 'curbing women's rights.' It's expanding mens' rights to be equal of those of a woman, which they should be.


My argument was hyperbolic, IE should we curb the rights of unmarried mothers to access their children? Since we seem to accept it with fathers.


And as to Feminism...I think you have a rather stereotypical view of it.


My view is based upon the fact that I see no high profile feminists fighting for issues that affect the inequality of men. Where were the feminists behind "Fathers4Justice"? etc. 

What most feminists strive to achieve is a society without gender-normative views. A view connected to this one is ''Women ought to take care of the children because they are naturally better at it''. If that view is removed it should follow that men are equally able to take care of children as women. Ergo a feminist would probably agree that this is an injustice and worth striving against. As Robin said there is no reason for antagonize feminists for this. Why not discuss it with them instead? Furthermore why is this just the responsibility of feminists? Surely, feminism strives against gender normativity but this seems like a debate that the entire the UK ought to be involved in.  

Furthermore why is this just the responsibility of feminists? Surely, feminism strives against gender normativity but this seems like a debate that the entire the UK ought to be involved in. 


I agree. My point is though that feminists today continue to claim that they are in favor of gender equality, where as in fact they never ever take up any causes of men. This strikes me as hypocritical, hence I am calling them out on it.

What people usually mean with gender equality implies what i wrote above. But feminists do focus on instances where men have levrage. Which are many. It all comes down to it being women who are the more opressed gender in modern day society. For example men earn more and have more opportunities in getting prestige jobs. In developing coutries women are often less educated than men because they have to stay and help out at home. In China infant girls are being left in the woods to die because Chinese farmers don't think it's proper for women t inherit and own farms and because they are only allowed to have a limited amount of children. Surely males ought to have the same rights to their children as women but there seems to be an amount of problems that is equally or more important to those men have.

It all comes down to it being women who are the more opressed gender in modern day society


I'd dispute that. Who are in prison more? Men. Who are homeless more? Men. Who commit suicide more? Men. Who are more likely to succumb to addcitions to alcohol/gambling? Men. In many many measurable ways, men have it very very bad in society today. The problem with the debate currently is that feminism has co-opted it to such an extent to make it look like women are always persecuted more than men.

All that might be true. But i'm not going to list and compare negative things that happen to men and women. Then we would have to agree on some theory of what is worse. And that would take time that neither of us have. Instead i'd like to argue that there are feminists who support mens rights. Because of the simple fact that it's coherent to supporting equall right. And would you want to call that out as you said? Don't you agree that discussing the matter is a better sullotion than ''pointing finger''?

Because of the simple fact that it's coherent to supporting equall right. And would you want to call that out as you said? Don't you agree that discussing the matter is a better sullotion than ''pointing finger''?



As far as I can see, feminists offer lip service to equal rights, yet I have yet to see a real substantive case of feminists supporting men's issues.

Tell ya what. I'll promise to support legitimate issues of the men's rights movement if you promise to support legitimate issues of feminism.

Saying that feminists pay "lip service to equal rights" is forgetting some major points in history, like that feminists were leading abolitionists in the mid-1800s US, getting blacks the vote even before they had it. Women's rights should mean rights for all. If someone doesn't believe that then they shouldn't be calling themselves feminists.

Then again, a man who doesn't support women's rights shouldn't be called a... menninist? or men's rights supporter- everything must be reciprocated. That's equal.

I guess what i'm trying to say is that blaming feminists for this sort of thing is similar to blaming men's rights advocates for the income gap. Its part of a system from the past- don't blame the present, and for that matter don't blame the past- fix it.

Saying that feminists pay "lip service to equal rights" is forgetting some major points in history, like that feminists were leading abolitionists in the mid-1800s US, getting blacks the vote even before they had it. Women's rights should mean rights for all. If someone doesn't believe that then they shouldn't be calling themselves feminists.



Please notice the tense I used. I did not say "Feminists have always" or "Feminists have". I used the present tense. I am aware that in the past, feminists were indeed active on important issues, but not they are, as I have said, only paying lip service.

Can you name me a specific Women's Right Group that has either

a)Openly opposed men as an entire gender, and not as the traditional status quo?
b)Has pursued a political or legal action with the intention of causing harm to men, as a group of people - not an isolated incident or individual? Or, perhaps, a case that was pursued despite immediate and long term devastation to present and future men?
c) Can you show me the solidarity in all of feminism in such an action?
d) Can you do so without referring to Nazis?

I am a feminist. I don't bullsh*t equal rights.
Feminist aren't your enemy. We don't go bump in the night. We're not out to get you. We're not trying to take over the world. We don't think we are better than men.
But we will not shy away from fighting when we are treated as something less-than-a-man. Have you ever had to have such a struggle? To PROVE to your peers or to your community that you are NOT less of a person because you are not male? It kinda sucks. And such instances are not isolated or incidental - they are common place as many traditions, institutions and policies are still set in old fashioned ways that scorn or frown upon women who do-as-men-do.

The concept of "manhood" pressures men to behave recklessly, to never back down, to always fight, to prove yourself, to take what you want, to never take "no" for an answer, to never have to reflect or regret, to bend others to your will, to attack anyone who hesitates, shows remorse, or deviates from what is understood to be "manly". That to be a "good person" means being "less of a man." I cannot think of another value that hurts men as badly as it ensures them dominance over women. It leads to men in hospitals, prisons or graves. It leads to women being beaten, raped and/or murdered. It is, equally, a concern for men and women that feminist take up.
Tell me that's lip service?

Maybe this will sound better coming from a man?
http://www.nomas.org/node/122

"Many women know they are oppressed by patriarchy. They have the life experiences of belonging to an oppressed group and have most likely shared personal stories that reveal their wounds from patriarchy. Men, on the other hand, are less likely to recognize their gender privilege and probably have not shared stories of wounding women through their own oppressive behaviors nor have they grieved with other men over the harm they have caused to women. Vulnerable, acquiescent behavior is not commonly accepted as manly in today's society."

http://feministallies.blogspot.com/search/label/Feminism%20Helps%20Men

This is a list of blog entries by men who have benefited from feminism.

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/phmt-argument/#m...

This is a Feminism 101 blog, specifically linked to a section about how feminism and men's issue cross-over and how to address men's issues with feminists.

And here is a study about how men are not receptive to discussing their own sexist behavior with women but are very cooperative when confronted with their sexist behavior by other men. Illustrating that feminism NEEDS men to open communications with each other before all men can start talking to women on the same level.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110002180#...

RSS

Youtube Links!

Here are some YT links to channels related to Nerdfighteria and educational content!

*Can you think of any more? Pass along any suggestions to an Admin who will then add it to this list should it fit!

© 2014   Created by Hank Green.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service