Oh No! The Dreaded F-word!

The following comment by 'Angela and Robert Pedersen' appeared in the immediately foregoing CF post:

"Can you believe comment #12 on the About.com article that you linked for your readers? [Link to About.Com article, edited for brevity]

"'Equal parenting time is not the issue. The issue stems from parents inability to cooperate and work together in the best interest of their children. I am not exactely sure what the situation between Robert Penderson and his child’s mother is but I can guess they don’t get along or appear to agree on whats best for their child. Thats the issue and thats what does the most harm to children caught in the middle of their parents inability to agree. No change in law will ever stop this. The parents need to change their attitudes!'

'Comment by Shelia — April 28, 2008 @ 5:12 pm'

"It is sad to me that someone can be so comepletly off. I hope more of your readers will comment at the About.com article similar to how you did - excellent job."

Well. I don't know if that's Rob talking, or Angela -- and I'm pretty sure it can't be both. But I'm guessing it's Rob. Sounds like his voice, anyway!

And yes, I can certainly "believe" comment #12. It doesn't tax my power of belief by even so much as a faith molecule, and it is woefully certain that I've seen worse! Haven't we all. . .?

But I would sharply remind 'Shelia' that equal parenting IS the issue! If it is not the issue, then why the hell are they talking about it so much, eh? It sounds to me like somebody thinks equal parenting is the issue, even if it's not an issue for Shelia!

Now, in terms of posting words elsewhere on the web, I really don't get out much. I'm largely a CF homebody. In this case however, comments 16, 45 and 50 are my own. I got a little bit carried away on comment #50, but that's how it rolls sometimes, eh?

Comment #45 is the most significant of the lot:

(Parenthetically speaking, I cannot help but wonder if Shelia would classify herself as a feminist . . .?)

Comment by Fidelbogen — April 29, 2008 @ 6:39 pm

Please note, this is where the fun begins! All you crafty MRAs will twig to what I'm saying: the F-word -- feminism -- appears nowhere on the thread until my short statement cited above. Somebody had to break the silence, so I took the task upon myself. And man. . . it was easy!

Almost as easy would have been a standard feminist-bashing MRA rant. I can do such rants very well when I've a mind for it! But much of the time -- even most of the time -- I don't. And that is not because I'm inherently polite and civilized, but rather because we are playing a game of strategy which requires that we suit the measure to the matter!

In the thread, the word "misandry" occurs along with several open acknowledgments that MEN specifically are getting a raw deal. And yet. . . nobody speaks of feminism! Nobody links the dots into any larger pattern that would embed fathers' rights into an explanatory context, or cast light upon the source of all that man-hating which the various commenters have pointed out!

For it is not merely in divorce law and custody procedure that men are getting the short end. That may be the most visibly dramatic way, but it is far from the only way. In fact, male-bashing is endemic clear across the social landscape, and powerful forces are at work to see that it worsens steadily and spreads into every possible corner. And over the course of many years, MRA analysis has shown the source of this contagion to be precisely that organized system of thought and energy known as feminism.

So why the silence? Why is it virtually taboo, across large sectors, to even lightly mention the dreaded F-word in a conversation about men's griefs? Why is it only in the MRA clubhouse on the wrong side of the tracks that a more forthright style of conversation flourishes?

Right off the top, I can think of three reasons:

1.) Because some folk are just plain naive and thickheaded, and honestly don't know what the hell is going on. They are viewing the problem as if through the cardboard tube from a toilet-paper roll.

2.) Because some folk feel that feminism is fundamentally a Good Thing. And that appearances notwithstanding, the source of the problem must therefore lie in a direction other than feminism. And that this point is so axiomatic it's not even up for discussion.

3.) Because some folk know perfectly well what's up in regard to feminism, but choose for discretionary political reasons to buckle their lip, so as not to upset certain delicate applecarts in their working arrangements.

People in the third category have my respect and understanding. People in the first and second categories have what is left of my patience -- and that is not much!

But the thing which intrigues me first and foremost, is that this vexed silence concerning the word feminism encompasses nearly ANY emotional context or tone of voice. You needn't even be excoriating feminism. The taboo, in most cases, extends to any mention of the subject within certain realms of conversation -- namely, as I said earlier, where men's difficulties are the topic. For it seems that ANY reference to feminism in such proximity would invite speculation as per a causative nexus.

So when I posted my comment on that thread, I did no more than type the word feminism with some frills. Oh, certainly I was disingenuous as hell, and not meaning to be subtle about this! But I violated the taboo so very lightly that I may as well have brushed it with a feather. That my words were freighted with insinuation nowise cancels what they ostensibly intone -- and they ostensibly intone nothing prejudicial about feminism.

And yet, I broke the silence—that is what counts! I stuck a whirring moth in the brain bonnet of every reader on that thread. They experienced, if only for a moment, a certain thought of considerable heft. And. . . having once thought that thought, they can never again NOT have thought it.

You needn't break silence with a gong when a whisper or witticism will suffice. And from thenceforth you ease the volume up little by little.

Your written contributions to the thread in would arrive most timely. And if in the course of your remarks you wish to insert even once the word 'feminism' (howsoever blandly and nonchalantly voiced!) that too would be of service.