NOMAS

This seems like a good site www.nomas.org

These are men against sexism and pro feminism and gay rights. Their 12 steps men can take to end sexism are excellent and should be a way of behaving applicable to everyone - not just men.

I have just finished laughing . . .

http://www.the-spearhead.com/ is always good for a laugh and/or for making me absolutely blazing mad. An article posted there on 27 May called Feminism and the SAD (Standard American Diet) made me laugh but it also made me seriously angry. The gist of the theory is that Americans are all fat because of feminism.

The theory is that the second wave of feminism told women to stop cooking for their families and got women into the workplace doing low paid jobs producing fast food for the masses. Ergo Americans were fed on fast food and got fat and developed serious health problems. This wouldn't have happened if feminism hadn't existed.

Yes, well . . . . words almost fail me.

Especially as the whole argument is based on a fallacy - that feminism told women not to cook for their families. Even Betty Friedan didn't say that! The women she talked to who were happiest with their lot in life were those who worked part time or full time at a job which made them feel they were contributing to society in a meaningful way whilst still having time to keep their houses and families to the standard which was acceptable to everyone. In fact she found that those who were good organisers often had more time to themselves even after working full time and cooking for their families.

The theory also overlooks the role of men. The article states that men couldn't cook because they were too busy earning money - which is a cop out in my opinion. It's basically saying men don't want to do household chores because they would somehow emasculate them and as for cooking - well men will only do this if they can do it on TV and make millions out of it.

I personally don't agree with that idea but it seems to be what the article is saying. In fact it suggests men stood by and let this happen without doing anything about it themselves because it was 'women's work'. The sub text of the whole article is that women should go back to the home and stay away from things they don't understand because that way all the ills of an overweight population will be solved by a bit of home cooking. One of the comments suggested that the guy writing it would probably have been 3 inches taller than he is if his mother hadn't been a feminist . . . .

Riiiight! So it's the old ' Not me Guv, the other guy did it' excuse.

Age of consent

I came across a post on a men's rights blog saying that the age of consent is a misandrist law because it was militant feminists suffering from sexual jealousy who got it implemented. So it's anti men. Well actually I thought it was pro children to prevent them being forced into prostitution at the age of 12 or younger.

I'm not linking to the post because I've already been accused of harassment by even posting the fact in the comments that the age of consent affects both men and women and applies equally to boys and girls; as well as that the age of consent was enshrined in law in the Victorian era - which was hardly a high point for women's rights. The age of consent was raised to 16 from 13 in 1885 - as a result of campaigning by W T Stead.

Apparently since girls mature sexually much earlier than boys it would be better to lower the age of consent - at least for girls - so that men wouldn't be criminalised for having sex with girls under the age of 16. So if we change the law so that theft is illegal there won't be so many people with criminal convictions? And they say men are the logical sex.

I can see the arguments for lowering the age of consent but there is no consistency across the world and it is as high as 18 in Turkey and Malta and varies between 16 and 18 in the USA depending on which state you're in. It is a complex issue and cannot be dismissed as being anti men since it affects women as well.

The vexed question of access to children

I am half listening to a recent TV programme about the way fathers are effectively excluded in many cases from seeing their children following divorce or separation. Obviously it is not just fathers who suffer - it can be mothers as well. What I have never been able to understand is that both men and women use their children as pawns even while they are arguing they themselves know what's best for their children.

It is never going to be an easy situation but I cannot subscribe to the theory that women always lie and always seek to keep children away from their fathers. I have known several single mothers and all of them have been adamant that while they no longer love their husbands, these men remain their children's fathers. They will grit their teeth and remain civil often under extreme provocation because they believe the children need a relationship with their fathers. I'm sure not all women behave like this but I'm also sure not all men are plaster saints.

I can't help feeling the court system could be turning out better decisions than it does but I'm also sure parents need to put their children first and forget their own egos. That applies to men and women.

Equal opportunities and equal rights for women should lead to better solutions to these problems because each case will be judged on its merits and stereotypes will not govern decisions made by judges. Having said that I can't help feeling the situation would improve for many men if they played a greater part in their children's upbringing while they and their wives are still together - then in the event of a divorce they would be able to show how involved they are in their children's lives.

Badly behaved women

Venus: The Dark Side by Roy Shepphard and Mary Cleary is aimed at men and suggests that it is only women who behave badly in relationships and try to destroy men. The book should really have been called 'How to Live with Difficult People' because all the behaviours they describe could equally be exhibited by men. They cover things such a Borderline Personality Disorder, Sociopaths, compulsive liars, narcissistic personalities etc. They also explain how to deal with divorce - don't tell your wife you're divorcing her and take all the money out of the joint account and out it in your own name. Hmmm - not really the way to start if you want an amicable divorce and the advice could be applied to both men and women.

Many of the behaviours they say are suspicious at the start of a relationship are capable of more than one interpretation; for example - turning your mobile phone off, not immediately agreeing to dates when asked, not having sex on the first date. But if the woman was always available, agreed to anything you suggested and had sex on the first date - she'd be called needy and a slut. So basically unless you're a paragon of virtue, constantly massaging his ego, putting his needs before your own - do not think you can have a relationship with any man who has read this book and put all its advice into practice.

There is also a very patronising list of questions a man should ask a woman if he is thinking of starting a relationship with her including questions about her attitude to money, how many previous relationships, did she keep engagement rings, was she abused as a child, what has she done in the past when people have upset her. It even advocates getting your friends to ask her some of the questions and report back to you with the answers and asking her friends about her. The questions could equally well have been asked of men.

The only point in which I do agree with the authors is that ALL domestic violence should be treated equally serious - whoever is the victim.

Divorce

I'm still ploughing on through Melanie Phillips' The Sex-Change Society: Feminised Britain and the Neutered Male - whose cover I think is really dreadful so I will not reproduce it again here. She seems to blame all the ills of society on feminism. If women hadn't wanted to fulfil themselves and achieve their ambitions society would be a lot better off, men would be happy and children wouldn't be running wild. Women should go back to being selfless and self sacrificing and then the crime rate will decrease, all children will do well at school and men will go back to being fathers again.

So women have to be sacrificed on the altar of society? Why? Isn't there another way? She will keep saying we have a no-fault system of divorce - which it isn't. If you want a divorce in anything under 2 years you have to prove adultery, unreasonable behaviour or 2 years separation - all of which are summed up as 'irretrievable breakdown'.

Divorce is no walk in the park and women - contrary to the opinion of this author - do not undertake it because they are bored. More women file divorce petitions than do men - this does not indicate an unwillingness on the part of men to be divorced - if it did there would be more contested divorces or unilateral divorces where the other party does not consent - which take longer and need a greater period of separation than the 2 years separation mentioned above.

Divorce courts lean over backwards to favour women? Only if they have custody of the children - otherwise it is pretty equal treatment. Courts have to make sure the children are fairly treated. Why should they live in squalid surroundings while the father lives it up in a posh area of town? I exaggerate but many men think women should just walk away with the children and leave them with all the assets. Why? The children are the responsibility of both parents and both parents should contribute to the costs of their upbringing. It isn't always the case that the man made all the money and the woman sat around and did nothing - in spite of what she seems to be saying.

Men need women

I have read twice in the last couple of days the suggestion that men find life very difficult if women are independent because it means women are no longer dependent on them. Men therefore cannot have a meaningful role if women are not submissive and obedient.

Oh right - I see - one half of the population need the other half to be in a state of mental ill health in order for them to have satisfying lives and to be sure of their role. That to me says women have changed in their expectations and lifestyles but men haven't. They're still expecting to be the breadwinner in the family and to come home to a cooked meal on the table and all the household chores done by the self effacing wife who gets her personal satisfaction by waiting on him and their children hand and foot.

If this sort of arrangement suits both people then I have no problems with it but many of us don't want that set up and it was for us that the early campaigners fought - so that we could have choices about our lives. It seems we are slipping back towards women's only acceptable role is that of homemaker and man's only acceptable role is that of masterful head of the family.

Domestic violence

I have been reading extensively about feminism in recent months. I have also been reading about its opposite - though I'm not sure what name anyone would give to it. What bothers me about some areas of feminism today is that it is founded on the idea of women being victims and therefore entitled to special treatment. I don't subscribe to this theory. There is nothing more annoying than a victim.

The idea of women as victims is nowhere more visible than in the emotive problem of domestic violence. Violence in relationships is not just a women's issue. Men can be victims of it too. This does not mean I am criticising women and saying domestic violence against women does not exist. I am saying it does exist but women can be aggressors as well as victims. Feminism seems reluctant to accept women can be violent - to other women, to men and to their children. I have personally experienced incidents in which I could quite easily have been violent - but I walked away from the situation rather than do something I knew I would regret.

Feminism does itself no favours when it denies women can be violent and provision for those affected by domestic violence needs to encompass men as well as women. Why exclude battered men from refuges? If they are traumatised themselves they are hardly going to be a danger to women. Or are we saying women in refuges are anti-men or see all men as potential assailants? Is the tension between men and women so bad they need to be segregated in this manner? Society needs to face up to the reality that domestic violence is a problem that needs addressing - whoever it affects - and that men can be victims too.