Prof: Being a responsible father legitimizes ‘patriarchal power’

Submitted by Mastodon on Tue, 2018-08-21 19:50

Article here. Excerpt:

'Since we live in the age when anything can be deemed as “offensive” or “detrimental” to something which progressives hold dear — feminism, gender/race identities, class structure — it should come as no surprise that a Fresno State professor has discovered a down side to being a responsible dad.

Jennifer Randles’ paper “’Manning Up’ to be a Good Father: Hybrid Fatherhood, Masculinity, and U.S. Responsible Fatherhood Policy” from the journal Gender & Society claims federal programs which are designed to “responsible fatherhood” actually perpetuate “patriarchy, gender norms” and that dreaded “hegemonic masculinity.”

This certainly makes sense, for as PJ Media’s Toni Airaksinen reports, Randles’ goal was “to assess the feminist implications” of these fatherhood programs.

Though the government says “involved fathers provide practical support in raising children,” and that “children with involved loving fathers are more likely to do well in school, have healthy self-esteem, and exhibit empathy,” Randles ponders the negatives:'

Like1 Dislike0

Comments

... is an ad against feminism. Feminism leans on villifying men because that is necessary to justify female supremacy. Not sufficient to attack paternity and demand it be re-invented, should the effort show any signs of success, it must be discontinued.

Chrysler's ex-chairman Lee Iococca did a similar thing with the Omni/Shadow, a compact that sold for about $6500 in 1989 and was powerful and handled well. It was a re-invention of the compact car to make it an actually-desirable type of car. In fact it was so good, Lee I. ordered it discontinued because it was competing so well vs. the pricier sedan models. 1991 was thus the last year it was made.

We all know what became of Chrysler.

Point is, their whole market strategy was not really to offer a good alternative to sedans. It was to create a compelling loss leader, a path from compact to sedan to reel in the consumer. Once it met with success, well, it had to be destroyed. This is known as anti-competitive thinking. It puts the self-identified interests of the co. over the decisions of the market. While business leaders think they're being shrewd, in fact they are not. Businesses are shrewd by serving the market as it is, not how the business wants it to be. Just look at Jeff Bezos. He got there by serving the market, not by trying to fool it.

Underlying this recent feminist response to the presence of a loving and engaged father is the desire to sell you not that but something much more expensive, just like with the Chrysler story. Feminists despise men, esp. men-as-fathers. Like a compact car when sedans are pricier, there is no version of a father (ie, the compact car) that a feminist (ie, the car-maker) can approve of so long as moms (ie, pricier sedans) are around. As repeated by feminists in many places, the elimination or near-elimination of men is a major goal of the ideology. To that end marginalizing/eliminating any roles men may fulfill is desirable to them. With feminists, simply being male is an offense, much like just being Jewish was an offense in Nazi Germany. Not like they're trying to hide it.

Like2 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2018-08-23 04:03

Let's punish dads when they're irresponsible.

And let's punish dads when they're responsible.

Let's cut to the chase: let's punish dads. After all, they're men and men are bad.

If women don't want dads, then need to step up and take one the traditional financial responsibilities of fathers--no excuses allowed.

But women don't like that responsibility. They want choices--to have a child, to choose the role of the father vis a vis that child--but they still want men to pay. Or the taxpayers to pay.

After all, women are victims, not adults.

Another good reason to go MGTOW.

Like1 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Fri, 2018-08-24 13:26