I have a big, big, big issue with what pseudofeminists call male privilege. See, it goes like this: if you're male, Caucasian, middle-class or higher, you're privileged; if not, you can go join the pity parties at the echo rooms.

We often hear phrases like deadbeat dad and single mom - the first, obviously a target of scorn and the second, a pinnacle of female martyrdom.

We often hear about how women are oppressed and her duties limited to housework and child-rearing, and the wife that complains about how little her husband contributes to the household. A man cannot be a house-husband, or the sole breadwinner, and do enough. A woman cannot be a house-wife, or the sole breadwinner, without doing too much.

And it goes on and on like this, folks. But what about - amongst many other things - family law? It often takes a woman claiming abuse to make things like this happen.

I have heard many cases, from many good and hard-working men, who happen to fit the description for "privilege", that were up to their necks in child support and alimony payments. Who had not seen their children in several months or even worse, years. Fathers involved as much as they could, even if that was limited to the monthly checks and the rare phone call - if the ex so allowed.

Some of these men, in their time, were wrongly accused of sexually abusing their children. The ex-partners would convince their children to tell disgusting, false stories just to get the divorce, get the custody, and have the man out of their lives.

A man can cheat, but it doesn't make him a bad father. Unless there is an actual potential he could harm said child, there is no sensible reason why he should be cut off from his child's life.

A phrase that sums up what I'm trying to say can be found here:

Parental alienation is child abuse. The sole custody model is first stage parental alienation. Ipso facto, the sole custody model is child abuse.

The idea outrages me, demanding an ex-partner pay for the children he or she is not allowed to see.

If today's feminism was truly for an egalitarian society, this things would not be happening. How can you blame the patriarchy, if most of the times a man isn't even given the chance to be a father?

**

Attention, 2 Readers!: I have two essays due, 5000 words total, for this Wednesday. As it falls on St. Patrick's Day, aka Day I Use My Racial and Cultural Heritage to Get Faced, I will not post before then. To be safe, let me say: see you the 21st of March!

edit post

0 Reply to "privilege: not only for males. (or: father's rights, part 1.)"

  •