October 17, 2004

SHE'S SO MODERN:

Battle of the Sexes - The Rematch: The arrival of Bob Geldof as a sober champion may have given the men’s movement a new legitimacy after the the flour bombing and superhero stunts. But beneath the bids for sympathy a bitter extremism refuses to go away. (Jenifer Johnston, 10/17/04, Sunday Herald)

Twenty years ago next month Bob Geldof launched the crusade against famine in Ethiopia, which galvanised a generation. Today Geldof is still an articulate and passionate campaigner, but his cause is very different.

When Geldof shared his views on marriage and children on Channel 4 last week he became the acceptable face of an emerging movement more used to operating on the fringes.

When the former singer with the Boomtown Rats calmly and rationally dissected the flaws in a legal system that separated men from their children after the breakdown of marriages, he did infinitely more for fathers’ rights than the series of highly publicised stunts which have recently grabbed the headlines. Many women liked what he said. Critics liked what he said. Men were grateful for what he said.

While the purple flour bombs and Batman at Buckingham Palace did little to win the public over to the cause espoused by the Fathers 4 Justice group, Geldof’s quiet anger was much harder to dismiss.

His television broadcast may emerge as the moment when the arguments of the men’s rights movement finally struck a note with the public.

It is a movement that is gaining momentum. Fathers 4 Justice now boasts 16,000 members just two years after it was formed. Since the mid-90s there has been a steady rise in the number of support groups for male victims of domestic abuse, helplines for men caught in inescapable family law problems, and, more recently, political activism from men who want their gender to count for something, and not just on issues towards childcare.

Their list of grievances is growing and partly echoes the central planks of the women’s rights battle of previous decades. The four main areas of concern are education for boys, domestic abuse, fairness over divorce and access to children after a separation.

While access to estranged children has so far dominated the news agenda, education is the main bug bear of campaigners. Steven Fitzgerald of the Mankind Initiative, a charity which lobbies the government on male issues, calls the state of male education in the UK “awash with double standards”. He believes the recent success of girls in the system has been at the expense of boys’ education.


If only Britain had a conservative party to ride the PC-backlash.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 17, 2004 11:51 AM
Comments

I've always found the Fathers' Rights movement pretty pathetic, motivated more by love of money than kids.

Posted by: David Cohen at October 17, 2004 12:09 PM

There is no reason whatsoever for alimony. If the bimbo can't get a job, that is her problem.

Child support, OTOH, is absolute. You brought them into the world, they are your responsibility.

The fascinating thing about this article is that it assumes there are actually men in Britain, a dubious claim I would not make.

Posted by: Bart at October 17, 2004 6:53 PM

You know, Bart, I think I'm beginning to understand some of your relationship difficulties. I guess if there is no reason for alimony, guys smitten with their young assistants should be able to dump the old gal who stayed home for twenty-five years to raise the kids.

David: Not only are many of them money-focused, a lot are pretty scary types who are just in control enough to sublimate their urges to stalk and harass in a little politically correct activism. Not all, but a lot.

Posted by: Peter B at October 17, 2004 7:06 PM

Steven Fitzgerald would have to present evidence that boys were being kicked out of school, to make room for girls, before I'd buy his argument.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 18, 2004 9:48 AM

Peter,

I don't know where you live but everyone where I live is a two-income family or else they are singles like me.

The only 'housewives' I know are the wives of older professionals whose idea of housework is calling the maid, whose idea of cooking dinner is making reservations and for whom child-rearing is dumping the kid in an overpriced private school during the school year and in an overpriced summer camp when school's out.

If any person is so naive as to trust anyone else to be his/her provider in perpetuity, then just on the basis of stupidity he/she should starve to death and improve the gene pool. In this best of all possible worlds, we are all on our own.

Property settlements are not alimony and are not the subject of my earlier discussion.

Posted by: Bart at October 19, 2004 1:34 PM

Bart:

I'm a housewife.

Posted by: oj at October 19, 2004 1:46 PM
« BUSHBLAIRHOWARD: | Main | SO WOULD JOHN KERRY SPEAK WERE HE MORALLY COHERENT: »