If Masculism Existed…

May 20th, 2009 by Pelle Billing

…then the following male rights would already be implemented:

  • DNA testing of all newborns
  • Independent review of jail sentencing, to make sure that sentences are gender neutral (as opposed to the present, where men get longer sentences for identical crimes)
  • Family courts would make sure that men were only expected to give up financial capital in exchange for social capital; i.e. the only way a father (or mother) could lose custody would be by being proven to be unfit as a parent
  • A pregnant woman would be bound by law to inform the putative father of the pregnancy
  • The media would regularly be outraged that women don’t choose dangerous jobs
  • Magazines for men would publish articles about women’s emotional violence called “Top Ten Signs That She’s on Track to Manipulate and Control You”
  • The only way to convict a man of rape would be by actually proving this beyond  reasonable doubt
  • Women would be required to do military service and be drafted in the same way as men
  • Women dressing sexily in the workplace would be considered a form of sexual harassment
  • Women would still have access to free abortion, but would be obligated to have one conversation with a social worker where the man was present, before being able to have the abortion (to give the man a chance to voice his opinion, even though he would still have no legal rights)
  • Schools would be experimenting with new ways of teaching boys effectively, in order to combat the trend of underperforming boys in school

What other points can you think of?

Tags:

16 Responses to “If Masculism Existed…”

  1. Albert KLamt Says:

    For the moment I simply enjoy it, Pelle:):)

    Albert

  2. Pelle Billing Says:

    Thanks Albert :)

  3. Jim Says:

    “Women dressing sexily in the workplace would be considered a form of sexual harassment ”

    Oddly enough, the only place I have ever seen this enunciated and then enforced was in a (female-dominated) school environment – sixth-grade – 12-13 year old kids. The teacher was female, had had complaints form boys mothers about barrages of phone calls from girls in the class, and read the girls the riot act about stalking and sexual harrassment, and then went on to make some very pointed comments about bare navels and short skirts and all the rest.

  4. Danny Says:

    I would add:

    “Child Support would be based on what the child needs and what the noncustodial parent can afford (meaning their quality of living does not drop drastically), not what the custodial parent wants (meaning their quality of living doesn’t increase drastically).”

    The thing is when the parents were together and breadwinner lost their jobthe standard and quality of living went down for every, not just the breadwinner. So how does it make sense that when the noncustodial parent is expected to maintain the same quality of living for the custodial parent and child even after pay cuts, job loss, and medical reasons? Why are there stories like this in which a man takes a 60% cut in pay but can’t get his child support obligation lowered? I wonder if all the women’s advocates that are chompping at the bit to tell him, “Too bad so sad, pay up.” would be so ignorant of this if a bunch of noncustodial mothers started coming forward with stories like this.

  5. Pelle Billing Says:

    Jim,

    I think mothers (and ordinary women in general) will be instrumental in challenging feminism and then moving beyond it. Mother will not put up with their boys being demonized in school or getting bad grades.

    Danny,

    Yeah, I’ve heard some weird stories from the US about child support. Even the fact that you have alimony is very different from Sweden; here alimony doesn’t even exist.

    What’s the official law though? Is child support based on what the two parents actually earn?

  6. Danny Says:

    Honestly I’m not sure what the official law says but I think its based on what the paying parent makes and judge’s discrection. This may be how you end up with a dad paying a mom child support, the child’s health insurance, and who knows what else yet mom has a higher annual income than dad.

    And one other thing if you are familiar with the annual practice of filing taxes. In the situation of a dad paying mom child support (this list also includes non tax related issues):
    1. The dad gets no credit, break, or acknowledgement that a portion of his income is being taken for support. That means he may be paying taxes on a $60k/yr salary but is actually only taking home $45k/yr after the deductions.
    2. The mom gets that mone tax free. Meaning that she may be paying taxes on $45k/yr but is acutally taking hom $60k/yr.
    3. Child support is different from alimony meaning that a dad may be paying child support and alimony at the same time.
    4. While there is a system of accountability to make sure he pays support there is no system of accountability to make sure she is using it on the child. Meaning mom may be driving a $50k car while the child barely has two weeks worth of school clothes.
    5. Even in joint custody setups the dad may still have to pay child support. Meaning that even though custody is shared he still has to pay mom child support which puts more financial strain on him.
    6. Child visitation for the noncustodial parent is enforced with nowhere near the same level of tenacity as child support. A man can end up in prison for not paying child support (no matter the reason be it job loss, injury, etc….) but a woman can flee the state (or sometimes the country) to deny the father visitation and not get punished.
    7. A woman can decide that she doesn’t want the father of the child around (regarless of his fitness as a parent and his willingness to be a parent) while at the same time she can take him to court to make him pay child support.

  7. Pelle Billing Says:

    Thanks for those details Danny, it’s interesting to hear how it works in the US.

    Here in Sweden, the financial situation for divorced men is more reasonable. The horror stories I’m hearing are about women falsely accusing their ex-husbands of violence or sexual assault – and merely alleging such a thing can be enough to keep the father away from the children for years. Even in “clean” custody battles the mother gets the children more than 90 percent of the time. Similarly to what you describe, child support is enforced more vigorously than child visitation, and the mother doesn’t get punished for abducting the children.

    These are tough issues, and it all comes back to the balance between financial and social capital. How do we value and even trade those two assets?

  8. Clabbe Says:

    I have an addition to this great list.

    Most females choose male partners who are several years their senior. In addition, couples who live together usually have a joint economy (I.e. their paychecks go into a common account). Since the male usually is older and therefore earns more, the female gains an advantage.

    This is an aspect that seldom if ever is addressed in feminist discourse. In an masculinist world, I would like to see more research on couples joint economy – for instance: which gender spends more of the joint finances on personal items?

  9. Pelle Billing Says:

    I would like to see more research on couples joint economy – for instance: which gender spends more of the joint finances on personal items?

    I think that kind of research already exists. Does anyone have a link?

  10. Danny Says:

    These are tough issues, and it all comes back to the balance between financial and social capital. How do we value and even trade those two assets?

    A level playing field would help when it comes to evaluating the need for finanacial and social capital for mothers and fathers.

    For financial it seems it is assumed that in the event of divorce and regardless of custody arrangements the mother must at a disadvantage. So in order to address this we have alimony and child support. On the other hand it is assumed that (regardless of the custody arrangement) the father must have had the advantage. So in order to address this he must give up a portion of his income to set the balance. Now I have no problem with this when the father actually does have the financial advantage but these days it is just assumed that he does and awardings are based on those assumptions.

    For social it is assumed that in the event of divorce and regardless of custody arragements or predivorce conditions the father must not have cared about the child because he was out of the house most of the time (nevermind that he was sacrificing that family time for the career supported the family). So since he didn’t care before why should he has any custody now? Whether or not he has any post divorce financial obligations a dad should have visitation unless proven unfit. And I mean proven unfit, none of that bull where the wife makes an accusation and the deciding bodies just “err on the side of caution” (meaning they are too lazy to actually check it out so they’ll just assume its true).

  11. Pelle Billing Says:

    Yes, the issue is that we have a system (in most countries) for regulating the financial situation after a divorce, but we don’t have as developed a system for regulating the social stuff.

    Since men have always been valued according to how they perform, there is no tradition of caring for men’s social situation or emotional life. Thus, there is no real system in place that cares about men’s psychosocial situation after a divorce. Nobody cares if the man can’t see his children, and society doesn’t care if the man commits suicide.

  12. Eivind Says:

    You make me smile, Pelle. This is kick ass. The DNA testing in particular is highly controversial, but highly logical if applied to men’s issues in the same feminism is applied to women’s issues.

    Eivind

  13. Jim Says:

    “Yes, the issue is that we have a system (in most countries) for regulating the financial situation after a divorce, but we don’t have as developed a system for regulating the social stuff.”

    We used to have such a system, and it could be horrid.

    For situations in which a man sired a child outside of marriage, it was assumed and generally was the case, that he had no interest in raising the child. This was because the only men child support laws really addressed were the ones with enough money to make it worthwhile, and the only women they generally could have sex with outside of marriage were far beneath them socially, so they weren’t really interested in any kind of continuing relationship with either the women or the children.

    And then in situations in which the father and mother were actually married, a man could generally only divorce his wife for infidelity. an unfithful women usually slunk away in disgrace and that was that, and the kids stayed with the father.

    And then in some cases the father just ran out on his wife and left her with the kids. Ideally he should have paid child support, but he was gone after all, and in those days there was no way to trace him.

    All threee options sucked in their various ways.

  14. Pelle Billing Says:

    @Jim
    I agree that we need to be very careful when regulating the “social stuff” after a divorce. I think a starting point could be to award joint custody in all cases unless one parent has been proved to be unfit for the role.

    @Eivind
    It *is* a very interesting thought experiment, no?
    Still, I feel I showed great restraint when compiling the list.

  15. Jim Says:

    “I think a starting point could be to award joint custody in all cases unless one parent has been proved to be unfit for the role.”

    This would have the effect of duplicating for the child as much as possible the arrangement before the dicvorce, minimizing the disruption the child experiences.

    In the US at least when it has been adopted it has had the effect of reducing divorces, because spouses know they cannot get rid of the spouse they are divorcing totally, that they will have to go on raising the couple’s children jointly.

  16. T. Rose Says:

    I like the list,especially the part about abortions which should favor the woman a little more than the man,after the man doesn’t get pregnant for 40 weeks.

    However I don’t believe that girls dressing sexily should be considered a form of sexual harrassment any more than boys being shirtless being considered such,both should be discouraged by all means for being unprofessional but that kind of thinking leads to all sorts of problems


Google