Thursday, February 07, 2008

Maybe "Open Season for Man-Blaming" is finally ending...

This article written by Dr. Helen Smith regarding many men's current attitudes towards women and marriage (in response to Kay Hymowitz' presumptuous but unfortunately typical male-blaming article "Child-Man in the Promised Land") and most of the comments that follow are a welcome change to the usual current popular fare.

In short, my opinion is that Dr. Smith gets it. Male reproductive rights essentially don't exist, and current child support/matrimonial laws are only the tip of an iceberg of unfortunate but still fashionable insulting, exploitation and oppression of men. Consequently, I don't think many men will be surprised by most of the comments, or by the points Dr. Smith is making. I know many men will be astonished (and very pleased), however, that these types of article are finally being written.

An aside: don't read this as a general slam of Ms. Hymowitz (who can be perceptive on a range of subjects even when I disagree) or of women in general. It's neither.


Mike said...

Very good insights, similar to what we discussed at my place.

I suspect historically, male reproductive rights are really a hold over from the days when women didn't "work" and "required" a man to support them - usually required by men in power who were genuinely misogynist and sexist. Its not reproductive rights at all - its some men trying to maintain coercive control over women and, in general, the state trying to claim responsibility for "women and children" and not have to actually pay for it.

In the end, both women AND men are victimized.

Ron said...

Men obviously ought not to be able to control women--and women obviously ought not to be able to control men--and your point about the state claiming responsibility for "women and children" is a good one.

There are victims all over the place and a lot of it boils down to a failure to legally recognize one truism: "in the absence of a demonstrable contract, there is *no* contract", and the mere existence of a sexual relationship implies (or ought to imply) no contract at all.