Playing Both Sides

Anonymous User writes "The NCFM regarding the article in the NY Times here

I don't think this is something that the NCFM should be celebrating -- another poorly veiled power grab by 4th/5th wave feminists. The NYT is printing this article not because they are stepping back on feminism, but because they are stepping up. They want women to rule the workplace AND the family. Women can have as much as they choose to want in the world of employment - time to put the brakes on men when it comes to family.

Don't be convinced by this feminine stroke on the male ego. (Oooh you big strong working man!) I'm certainly not impressed."

You can probably guess what to click to read the rest by now.

Problem here is, sometime during the 1990's, younger feminists started putting their panties back on. They wanted all the priviledges of being a man, but they still want to be treated like a woman. As always, a woman wants to choose between work and family; men are stuck with whatever is left over. Nobody even asks you.



Note, I don't see any mention in this article regarding who gets custody of the kids in case of a divorce (No doubt they feel it ought to be them). It doesn't say that women who choose to stay at home are any less likely to divorce. It doesn't say anything about "family values." Or how (in contrast to 50 years ago) these women can end up screwing their husbands by taking the children yet expecting to be "supported in the manner to which they have grown accustomed." Or even that stay-at-home moms should be especially appreciative of their working husbands. In fact, husbands aren't even mentioned at all.



If you're a guy, you're not even a consideration so far as the article is concerned. It's the same old story. Women have kids. Man's paternal relationship to the children extends by proxy through the mother. She's legally and financially protected yet has no obligation to you at all. You're obligated to everyone and are perennially out on a limb.



Don't be a bunch of idiots. These women aren't retreating back to tradition. They're not giving up no-fault divorce. The divorce rate is not 50 %, and there is no indication that isgoing to change. They're not going back to the presumption that the male "rules the roost" in the house and owns everything material in the marriage. How is this in your best interest to be sucked into sucha situation?



There is no going back on these issues. Clearly, this is a case of "What's yours is mine and what's mine is mine too."



For the luxury of staying at home with the children, what exactly are they proposing to reciprocate? They haven't said. Because they don't care.



There is NO TURNING BACK. DEMAND equal respect and consideration as a parent. After all, what's the use of having a career if you are divorced and have no family?



See it for what it is. This is one of the most selfish feminist articles I have ever seen.

NOTICE: This story was migrated from the old software that used to run Mensactivism.org. Unfortunately, user comments did not get included in the migration. However, you may view a copy of the original story, with comments, at the following link:

http://news.mensactivism.org/articles/04/05/16/202233.shtml