Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"A Systemic Devaluation Of Fathers As Caregivers"
Toogood Reports ^ | 5/28/02 | Isaiah Flair

Posted on 05/28/2002 7:17:49 PM PDT by The Giant Apricots

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

1 posted on 05/28/2002 7:17:49 PM PDT by The Giant Apricots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The Giant Apricots
Hmmm... this article is not persuasive, a vague analysis of surface arguments, and entirely ineffectual IMHO. Roles are changing in our society, true enough. But aside from a lightweight op-ed piece from the vaguely left-center crowd, where's the beef?

:)

2 posted on 05/28/2002 7:40:07 PM PDT by RightlySo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Giant Apricots
I recommend everyone read:

The Myth of Male Power,

If men are the powerful sex....

As the only man ever elected three times to the Board of the National Organization for Women (NOW) in New York City, Dr. Farrell has been listening to both sexes for a quarter of a century and is uniquely able to write in a way that both articulates men's feelings and women feel more love for themen in their lives.

3 posted on 05/28/2002 7:43:38 PM PDT by farmfriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
Shoot, my link didn't show up. Helps if you check these things before you post.

The Myth of Male Power, Dr. Warren Farrell

4 posted on 05/28/2002 7:45:24 PM PDT by farmfriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: The Giant Apricots
In that same past, men ruled the workplace. Every workplace. Without exception."

Really? Nursing and teaching grammar school have been women dominated for a century.

5 posted on 05/28/2002 7:56:26 PM PDT by Kermit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kermit
"In that same past, men ruled the workplace. Every workplace. Without exception."

ROTFLMAOL

Men have only ever ruled anything women thought they could deal with and not screw up too much.Mostly men vs men situations.Keeps the peace, dont you know.

Women for centuries have even professed a fear of insects in order for males to feel themselves in a position of power, more so since Winchestor/Ruger/Ingrahm/ Smith $ Wesson became household names.LOL

I do appreciate a healthy dose of true testosterone, but I have never,in my entire life ,seen a "real" man intimidated by a "real" woman. Or vice-versus.

This is not to say I do not believe it can happen,just that I am not automatically overly sympathetic. Case by case basis.It can and does happen, but mostly by men lacking in testosterone or women lacking in estrogen, and either/both filled with insecurity.

6 posted on 05/28/2002 8:39:16 PM PDT by sarasmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
Answers to your questions:

1-young boys committ "suicide" during a pleasure enhancing, masturbation ritual in which they "slightly" hang themselves. Obviously, such action has very little room for error.

Old men committ suicide because when a man is no longer able to provide and protect what is the use in living.

2-By 1998 men and women longevity was virtually the same, with women coming down while men went up.

3-Politicians buy women's votes by spending money on breast cancer research, have been buying women's votes for years.

4-Because a) for heterosexual men, their wives spend their money, b) for homosexual men, they spend their money and live for today because their life expentancy average age is 45 years old.

7 posted on 05/28/2002 8:54:45 PM PDT by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tahiti
Dr. Farrell helps us understand:
8 posted on 05/28/2002 9:07:45 PM PDT by farmfriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
If DR Farell helps you to understand life so clearly-you should question DR Farell's credentials very closely.
9 posted on 05/28/2002 9:47:11 PM PDT by sarasmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sarasmom
but I have never,in my entire life ,seen a "real" man intimidated by a "real" woman.

,,, that's the reason the Family Courts exist for.

10 posted on 05/28/2002 9:53:47 PM PDT by shaggy eel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sarasmom;riley1992
you should question DR Farell's credentials very closely.

I have. See my posts and link in #3 & 4. I never said he was God's gift to writers but he makes some very good points in his book. I have been a masculinist for many years. I am also a woman.

11 posted on 05/28/2002 11:01:20 PM PDT by farmfriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: shaggy eel
Fancy seeing you on this thread. If we can't agree on the farm bill, maybe we can agree on something here?
12 posted on 05/28/2002 11:03:07 PM PDT by farmfriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
,,, OK, let's see. What's at issue?
13 posted on 05/29/2002 1:04:23 PM PDT by shaggy eel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: The Giant Apricots
The "erroneous fallacy" positions offered here are set up as easy enough straw men, I'm a bit surprised to find the author struggling and failing to dispose of them. Yet despite the failed attempt to find a "third way" between two hateful extremes (extremes which I don't know anyone advocating, yet presented here as somehow encompassing a pressing current debate), this article does get around to presenting something of a coherent thesis of its own. It is here:

Reality is extremely simple: people should, as individuals, pursue the career-and-family paths in life that they are, as individuals, good at. The sole qualifier upon such a pursuit is that no one else's equal rights, especially the rights to have and protect life, should be abrogated on the basis of gestational age, developmental stage, biological sex, race, or ethnicity in the course of that pursuit.

The underlying confusion of this piece appears even here. The author describes an opinion he is advocating as "reality." Unfortunately, in its details this opinion flies in the face of reality, as well as freedom.

Rather than pick apart the many and varied failures of this confused piece, I'll cut to the heart of the matter.

Mr. Flair ignores the fact that men and women are different. I don't mean different in terms that one is oppressed, or that one is better. I mean simply different. They have different capabilities, and they make different choices. Reality reflects this truth. Some fields are dominated by one sex rather than the other due to dissimilar average ability between the sexes. Other fields are dominated by one sex rather than the other not because of physical disparity, but because one sex prefers that field more than the other. Given the undeniable fact of difference between the sexes this is a normal outcome, not a problem to be resolved by social engineering.

Flair displays an ideological fetish for a form of absolute equality divorced from reality. An ideology that treats men and women as indistinguishable and interchangable, and castigates those who disagree, is at war with human nature itself.

14 posted on 05/29/2002 2:06:41 PM PDT by Snuffington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shaggy eel
Well first read the article and my posts. Are men suffering from reverse sexual discimination?
15 posted on 05/29/2002 2:41:11 PM PDT by farmfriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
,,, where I am, men are fast becoming an underclass. Within the context of marital breakdowns, the system efficiently assets strips them. Under the framework of a closed Family Court, a feminist template for social re-engineering decides that a father is an "affordable loss" to the family. The state provides legal aid for women to retain homes, cars and furniture, half of any superannuation scheme contributions etc., as well as fighting the pre-determined outcomes of Family Court battles at the expense of taxpayers. The results are showing in what's being turned out of schools and single parent homes.

As for the workplace, it's changed over the years because everyone's having to work harder - two incomes are necessary in most homes. I'm confident that I could run a home as efficiently as my wife could. We share tasks around our home as a matter of reflex and both hold down day and after hours jobs. Any women wishing to enter the workforce to experience the glamour of supervised employment certainly has my blessing. Any women who run their own businesses have my admiration, as they will work considerably harder.

16 posted on 05/29/2002 3:11:28 PM PDT by shaggy eel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: shaggy eel
I guess we can agree on something.
17 posted on 05/29/2002 3:30:51 PM PDT by farmfriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rogerFGay
~
18 posted on 05/29/2002 5:23:15 PM PDT by shaggy eel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: nick danger
~
19 posted on 05/29/2002 5:47:02 PM PDT by shaggy eel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Kermit
Really? Nursing and teaching grammar school have been women dominated for a century.

The phrase "the past" is not constrained to timelimits of one century.

20 posted on 05/29/2002 11:07:44 PM PDT by Dr. Octagon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson