May 04, 2005
Female Chauvinists - The Women In The Men's And Fathers' Rights Movements
Part Three of Amanda's series on fathers' rights is up. This one is about the women who support the men's and fathers' rights movements. She discusses the usual suspects, such as Cathy Young, Kate Roiphe, Christina Hoff Sommers, The Independent Women's Forum, The Second Wives Club, and Stephanie Frostic of "Paternity By Choice."
I was especially interested in The Second Wives Club. This is what I wrote about second wives in comments:
"What's really interesting is when a Second Wife ends up getting divorced herself. These women find out that the way she and her husband went after his ex-wife is exactly how her soon-to-be-ex-husband will go after her. She had helped him find a fathers' rights lawyer and fathers' rights group for "support." She filled out his paperwork and helped him try to reduce his child support obligation to his ex-wife in "fairness" to any children she, the Second Wife, had with him. These women like to argue that, in intact families, parents cut down their spending when a new child comes along, so they reason that ex-wives should see their child support lowered when the Second Wife has a child with her husband. Sometimes Second Wives help their husbands try to get custody of the kids from the previous marriage/relationship. When these women get divorced, they suffer the exact same treatment from their formerly supportive husbands they had given to the ex-wife. Sometimes he has a potention Third Wife who acts the same way she did towards the ex-wife when she was married to the guy. It's interesting to see when it happens. They frequently have a quick turn-around in their thinking, and sometimes even befriend the ex-wife - because they finally understand how harmful their actions have been. Now, their actions come and bite them on the ass."
Posted on May 4, 2005 at 01:22 PM | Permalink
What I think is interesting is old Phyllis Schafly starting her 2nd act (or is it 3rd act?) with the FR crowd. Back in the 70s, she was the self-identified defender of "traditional" women -- all those stay-at-home wives and mothers that feminists were presumably out to destroy with ERA and their "radical" ideas about "radical equality" between the sexes. She used to make speeches about how ERA would lead to women losing their "special" privileges and how they'd end up with the draft, combat duty, coed bathrooms with lurking perverts, and no right to financial support from their husbands (the last one never existed as a legal right at all, but was a social expectation).
So what do we have 30 years later? Women getting killed in Iraq, even mothers with young children, because of a backdoor draft. Even without official combatant status. Increasing numbers of women of color being pressured into military service to make up for the decrease in men and whites who are enlisting. Rape, harrassment -- from their brothers in uniform no less -- and that without ERA! (Whatever did happen to coed bathrooms?) And forget the right to support from your husband. Alimony is as extinct as T. Rex. And child support? Don't count on it. You the woman may be paying it, even if hubby still makes double of what you do.
Funny, how even in the light of all that, Schafly now preaches what looks like indiscriminate equality herself --"equality" with no recognition of the fact that where situations are unequal, so is "equality." Like in matters of reproduction. In a most obvious sense, reproduction involves vastly different investments in time, health, psychological change, money, employment, etc. in men and women. Yet all that will be minimized and ignored in favor of "equality" between the sexes. Schafly used to criticize feminists for that sort of rigidity of thinking, applying a blanket abstract principle reflexively and without thought, and in retrospect, she may have had a point in some instances.
So how come none of her traditional constituents will call her on her about face? Does she have nothing to say to all those good Christian women who stayed out of the workforce because they were supposed to, and now risk losing their kids--their whole way of life--in a divorce that may have not been of their choosing?
Posted by: silverside at May 4, 2005 2:27:03 PM
Good lord, you'd have to have a few screws loose to date a guy who did nothing but complain about his ex and supporting his kids. Whooo! There's a fun date! There's a guy I can count on--to suck up all of the oxygen in the room.
Silverside, wingnut conservatives like Schafly and her ilk are only interested in rolling back women's rights. They don't give a hoot about displaced SAHM's.
Posted by: Sheelzebub at May 4, 2005 11:52:54 PM
More heat than light here on Schafly. It's clear that Schafly's opinions are despised. The funny part is that I've never heard of Schafly and don't know their opinions. With this discussion I get the impression Schafly was right without knowing about what.
In the long run you get what you pray for...for yourself and others. All hell's are self made. Pray that the ex goes-to-hell and it happens...to you.
Posted by: Huggy at May 5, 2005 7:53:20 AM
Of course I'm not a Phyllis Schafly fan. I'm simply pointing out her hypocrisy. I know she didn't really give a flying ---- about sahm's in the 70s or now. She's basically an opportunist. Fathers Rights is "hot" right now, so she's jumping on that bandwagon, even if it means screwing over the women she claimed she was defending before -- traditional wives and mothers.
As for never having heard of Schafly, you can't know anything about this history of 2nd wave feminism (and anti-feminism) without knowing something about Schafly. She was involved in the Eagle Forum and other major right wing organizations even before her ultimately successful anti-ERA campaign. Now she's a major senior female in Fathers Rights.
Posted by: silverside at May 5, 2005 8:15:24 AM
One of the hallmarks of oppression is that the victims are encouraged to participate in the victimisation of their group. Further those that participate most willingly are rewarded with certain limited advantages and informed that they are on the ladder to full liberty. Thus encouraging them to persist in their support for the opression they are suffering and encouraging others to follow them.
I feel quite sorry for these women. I hope in the long run we, the real feminists, can liberate them too.
Posted by: Cruella at May 5, 2005 8:57:23 AM
Not that I myself am advocating a harsh policy (lest there be any misunderstanding on that point), but I do find it interesting that any colonial or nationalist struggle has had to find strict ways of dealing with collaborationists, sell-outs, and the like, if it is to succeed. By contrast, this is how women as a group have coped all along. That's why I'm sometimes sceptical about the longterm possibilities for reform that would beneift the majority of women. It's just to tempting to cut a private deal that will get you ahead, even if it is selling out the rights of others. It's like a classic game of prisoner's dilemma. The FR ladies are seeing that they can get media recognition, job opportunities, more household income for themselves (by reducing or eliminating child support to the ex-wife) by playing the hand they do. If they lose their queen bee position and special privileges (e.g. the ex now starts abusing them or dumping them or threatening a custody fight), then they essentially reap what they have sowed. If you cut your deal with the devil, don't be surprised if the deveil wants to collect his due.
Posted by: silverside at May 5, 2005 10:03:32 AM
The sad part about all of this is that the courts really do treat men poorly, and there is a legitimate need for fathers to be treated fairly. Unfortunately, this legitimate need has been exploited and twisted by men's rights rhetoric.
I don't understand how those women can be female Chauvinists. I think you meant male Chauvinists, though I wish that word would be returned to its real meaning.
Posted by: Diane at May 5, 2005 11:23:44 PM
So Phyllis Schafly spoke about about women being drafted, put into combat duty, coed bathrooms, and losing financial support from their husbands if the ERA was passed. ERA failed yes, but many of the principles of it have been enacted, either overtly or in many cases covertly, by the courts and the bureauracracy and this shows that Phyllis Schafly was wrong, in what way?
You might have a point about her being hypocritical with the financial support aspect of it, if it's true. I don't have any of her speeches on hand.
I know she was most deried for complaining about co-ed bathrooms and I know she did speak about women being drafted and put into combat duty but offhand I don't recall hearing much about alimony.
As far as your comments about child support we have people here in Texas (and I know it happens in other states too) where fathers are going to jail on a regular basis for not paying child support but I sure haven’t heard about any women going to jail for it…. Forgive me I was going as off-tangent as the comments about the draft were…
How about arguing for or against Father's rights on the basis of their validity or lack thereof using truths and reality rather than attacking personalities?
Posted by: Fred at May 6, 2005 2:18:45 PM
No one attacked Schafly's personality, but her idea that inequality would be beneficial to women in the long run--it did squat.
Posted by: Amanda at May 6, 2005 2:31:35 PM
Clearly you've never needed the second wives club. I have. I'm a mom & a step mom. My husband and I have been involved in a bitter custody battle with the mother of his daughter (now 12) for the past 6 years and it has been a living nightmare. The second wives club was instrumental in helping me cope with the stress of my stepdaughter's mother and the variety of ways that she would intervene in our lives and our home.
Clearly this blog is not the forum for venting the details of our history and seeking support in dealing with that complex relationship, but the second wives club was the ideal venue.
As for the political relationship between the second wives club and men's rights groups, I think you may be lumping too many things together and misinterpreting our variety of interests.
Many of us second wives have a personal and vested interested in seeking presumptive joint custody in our states. We would like our husbands to have the right to see their children more often. We stand behind the father's rights political agenda to reevaluate custody laws, not men's rights groups denial of rape statistics. We are women too. And many of us mothers. The children's rights groups that seek the right for children to have relationships with BOTH their parents are not men's rights groups in disguise. Some men from men's rights groups are part of all of these groups, but that doesn't mean that all of these groups express the same belief as a minority of their members. Pendagon is both naive and poorly researched to suggest that.
As for many of our interest in overhauling child support guidelines, you'll find that this is not exclusively a concern of men's groups. Here is but one example of child support reform that benefits non custodial parents that doesn't come from misogynist roots:
I was a member of NOW for a long time. I'm not anymore because of the unsophisticated knee jerk reactions that inform decisions made regarding family policy.
My husband never married the mother of his first child. They were young and had unprotected sex. I had nothing to do with his relationship ending. In fact, his ex ended the relationship. I'm technically a first wife (and many of us on the siter are). Again, this is not the appropriate forum for these details and I mention them only because I think it is an erroneous and dangerous assumption to presume innocence on either gender. Relationships end sometimes. And life is long. People marry again and people get pregnant without being able to stay together. I am interested in the relationship that children have to both their parents and the rights children have to both their parents. It's likely I never would have noticed this issue if it did not so personally affect me and my family, but I live with these issues daily.
Regarding your statement: "Sometimes he has a potention Third Wife who acts the same way she did towards the ex-wife when she was married to the guy. It's interesting to see when it happens. They frequently have a quick turn-around in their thinking, and sometimes even befriend the ex-wife - because they finally understand how harmful their actions have been. Now, their actions come and bite them on the ass." My husband and I are awaiting an opposite scenario. His ex has 2 children with her husband and her husband has been very active in their custody battle against us. What would happen to their kids if they divorce?
I think the real biting in the ass will happen when women who refuse joint custody have sons who face the same fate their fathers did. Then what does Grandma say about joint custody when it comes to her own son and grandchildren?
Posted by: mom&stepmom at Aug 24, 2005 3:07:57 PM
"I think the real biting in the ass will happen when women who refuse joint custody have sons who face the same fate their fathers did. Then what does Grandma say about joint custody when it comes to her own son and grandchildren?"
Since there is some anecdotal evidence that girls who grew up without their mothers are more vulnerable to losing their own kids, I can't wait to see how all these single custodial fathers with their own control agendas react when "daddy's little princess" loses custody to an abuser freak just like the old man. Ain't gonna be pretty.
Actually, I know of a custodial father who moved constantly, kept the mother ignorant of his ever shifting address for years. Mother located the girl as a teen, girl already pregnant. Girl moves in with mom for a while. Mom unable to give her all the material things that daddy is promising. Despite mother's warning that Daddy and stepmom may try to take custody away from her, daughter moves back, despite dad's history. And Mom's prediction turned out to be exactly correct. The same control freaks pulled the same stunt again. Two generations.
Posted by: silverside at Aug 24, 2005 3:28:55 PM
Again silverside, your gross generalizations belie any logic to your argument. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence of damage done to boys and girls who grow up without fathers as well. You can probably go so far as to say that any child that grows up without either of his/her parents suffers enormously. Again an argument for sharing custody.
And who says that single custodial fathers are abusive? Because you knew ONE? Geez. I know a black guy who is a criminal.
Posted by: at Aug 24, 2005 3:36:53 PM
Good, so I take it that you'll follow suit and refrain from posting your own anecdotes as proof?
Posted by: Sheelzebub at Aug 24, 2005 3:50:49 PM
mom&stepmom, I think it's telling that you assume that women who refuse joint custody will end up with sons who end up divorced. Why assume that those sons will "face the same fate their fathers did"? Why assume their "fate" is divorce and an ugly custody battle? That's a sad way to look at your stepchildren.
That's a sad point-of-view to outright assume that it's likely your husband's ex's kids will end up divorced. I am divorced with sole custody of a teenaged son. I am not worried about him. I myself am also a second wife and a stepmother. I certainly don't assume that my son will have problems in his future marriage, and that he will have problems gaining visitation or custody of his children many years before - or even if - a divorce happens. You may be engaging in a self-fulfilling prophecy with your attitude about your husband's ex.
Many second wives who are supportive of the fathers' rights movement meddle too much in their husband's business. I'm long familiar with The Second Wives Club, and those women are no exception when it comes to meddling. They often do the leg work for their husbands while these poor men wallow in their own self-pity and anger. It sounds like you have done more than your share of meddling. Plenty of custodial mothers complain about meddling second wives, and they have good reason to. In fact, many custodial mothers have reported that they had few problems with their ex's - until their ex remarried. Then, the second wife begins her meddling, and all kinds of trouble starts.
I personally have not had a problem with my husband's ex-wife. He doesn't have a problem with her either, and if he had wanted to he could probably have created all sorts of problems - just the sort fathers' rights activists encourage divorced noncustodial dads to engage in. If second wives would butt out of things that are none of their business, their husbands and the custodial mothers of their husband's children would probably breathe a lot easier.
You're right that promoting The Second Wives Club won't go over well on my blog. I am well aware that there are many women supportive of the fathers' rights movement, and those women can be more aggravating than the men in the movement. I'm really not interested in hearing your story because I'm sure it's bound to be one-sided, painting your husband's ex-wife as an evil harpy. You wouldn't be the first second wife I've heard badmouth her husband's ex in that manner. You won't get any support here in telling your own story, and you certainly won't get any support in your opinions about presumptive joint custody. I suggest you take all that elsewhere.
Posted by: The Countess at Aug 24, 2005 3:51:47 PM
Countess, I didn't assume that women who refuse joint custody would necessarily ensure that their sons would end up not raising their own kids. Only that I think the bite would be if that did happen. I can't imagine how, for example, my husband's ex could possibly argue in favor of her son seeing his kids. Of course I think it's horrible for any parent to have to go through that as well as any kid having to live through. I didn't realize I would have to point that out.
And regarding, "You may be engaging in a self-fulfilling prophecy with your attitude about your husband's ex," I'm not sure how that could possibly happen. They have a different household and I have nothing to do with his ex's kids.
"It sounds like you have done more than your share of meddling." Nothing in my posts refers to any meddling at all, simply venting. Have you never needed to vent as a stepmother? Geez. Your life must be so perfect. You were probably lucky lucky enough never having experienced any interruption in scheduled visitations. You may never have had to fight a relocation battle.
Maybe every other weekend and Wednesdays from 3-7pm is exactly the way your husband wanted to see his kids. Maybe his kids are perfectly happy with that. Maybe they don't need to know their siblings, the children you have in common. Maybe it doesn't matter if your husband's kids can't see their siblings on their birthdays.
From the way you write, I can only imagine you as a pretty lousy stepmother if you don't care about your step kids seeing their dad while you so clearly care about your own kids seeing you. I love my stepdaughter and we have a terrific relationship. The problems with her mother started when her mother realized that her daughter was capable of loving someone other than her.
Countess, you sound more than a little bitter. More than that, though. You sound utterly incapable of empathy.
Posted by: mom&stepmom at Aug 24, 2005 4:17:09 PM
More than one study has shown that roughly 70% of the fathers pursuing custody have histories of domestic violence or abusive/controlling behavior. If you want the citations, the Countess or I will be happy to provide them. These guys do not function well with joint custody as they just do not work well with others. It is a type of personality that orders instead of converses. It is a personality that doesn't compromise, but threatens. I know the type, as virtually every other non-custodial mother I have ever communicated with. It's the same story, different name and place.
I was not going into all the literature about growing up without a father and what that really means. Most of it when adjusted for income and social class becomes meaningless. Also, it compares "single mothers" against intact, apparently reasonably happy and reasonably well-adjusted two-parent households. Which is pretty much comparing apples and oranges. It says nothing about a the loss of a father who is gone because of drugs, mental illness, prison, or other similar issues and all the damage he did to the children prior to his departure. Now that the literature is actually investigating the single custodial father households that have been mushrooming over the past decade, the picture for single dads is no better, and even worse in some measures. Partly because dads with histories of domestic violence and/or child abuse have been so openly supported by the FR crowd in their bids for custody. So now you're seeing the fallout.
Posted by: silverside at Aug 24, 2005 4:22:51 PM
Why EVERY SINGLE TIME when discussing joint custody must abuse be brought up? My husband has absolutely no history of abusive behavior. What about the 30% who have NO history of abusive behavior? When discussing presumptive joint custody, they very clearly state that joint custody would be presumptive barring a history of abuse.
What do you say about that?
And here's the other thing. My husband never pursued sole custody. He wanted joint. He wanted to see his kids more than 4 overnights a month. His ex pursued full custody. In NY state if one parent refuses to share custody, then they will not assign it. We are fighting to change the law. And we do not believe we are wrong to do so.
Posted by: at Aug 24, 2005 4:30:45 PM
mom&stepmom: "Countess, I didn't assume that women who refuse joint custody would necessarily ensure that their sons would end up not raising their own kids. Only that I think the bite would be if that did happen. I can't imagine how, for example, my husband's ex could possibly argue in favor of her son seeing his kids."
You begin by talking about a hypothetical divorce and custody battle before even a marriage has happened. How old are your stepkids? Are they even in school yet? Are they in middle or high school? How many years will it be before a marriage is even on the horizon? You are setting the seeds for problems you are imagining his ex *may* go through. Frankly, it's none of your business, so you have no business even imagining such a scenario.
mom&stepmom: "And regarding, "You may be engaging in a self-fulfilling prophecy with your attitude about your husband's ex," I'm not sure how that could possibly happen. They have a different household and I have nothing to do with his ex's kids."
That's right. So butt out, and mind your own business. The problem is that your views of your husband's ex are quite plainly out in the open. There's a good chance your stepkids know exactly how you feel about their mother. It's hard to hide the kind of animosity you are displaying here, on my blog, to perfect strangers. Your attitude doesn't help matters any.
mom&stepmom: "Nothing in my posts refers to any meddling at all, simply venting. Have you never needed to vent as a stepmother?"
mom&stepmom: "Geez. Your life must be so perfect. You were probably lucky lucky enough never having experienced any interruption in scheduled visitations."
No, "we" have never experienced any interruption in scheduled visitations. My husband has experienced interruptions in visitation. Life happens. My husband and his ex-wife merely rescheduled visitation. Why are you and your husband so busy creating problems with his ex-wife that he can't even discuss a change in visitation that sometimes is necessary?
Frankly, I think my life is perfect. :)
There seems to be quite a bit of sarcasm and bitterness in your comments. You can't keep your rage at your husband's ex in check. It shows. I'm sure it shows to him, to his ex, and to your stepkids. I feel sorry for those poor kids.
mom&stepmom: "You may never have had to fight a relocation battle."
Yes I have, actually. My own relocation battle. I needed to move with my husband from Maryland to Massachusetts. My ex-husband fought the move. I won. I now live two blocks from the ocean. We moved here about six years ago.
You need to stop meddling, bickering, and whining. You need to stop feeling sorry for yourself. You need to do something about your rotten attitude because it's highly unlikely that your stepkids aren't aware of how much you despise their mother. So many stepmothers with "problems" don't see how they create those problems themselves. They aggravate their own situations, and the children are the ones harmed the most.
You aren't going to get any sympathy here. Go whine on the Second Wife forums. They'll be glad to welcome you.
Posted by: The Countess at Aug 24, 2005 4:55:21 PM
mom&stepmom: "Why EVERY SINGLE TIME when discussing joint custody must abuse be brought up? My husband has absolutely no history of abusive behavior. What about the 30% who have NO history of abusive behavior? When discussing presumptive joint custody, they very clearly state that joint custody would be presumptive barring a history of abuse."
Did you just admit that 70% of custody cases involve abuse? Wow. Thank you for that. I've already seen that figure before. I'm sure you didn't intend to admit it. :)
It doesn't come up every single time, but it's important to bring up. Ann White wrote for the Florida Bar Journal that abusive fathers are more likely than nonabusive parents to contest custody, not pay child support, and kidnap their children.
Still, regarding cases where there is no history of abusive behavior, joint custody may still not be the best option for the family. Joint custody often doesn't work even in the best conditions. Here are some quotes from noted marriage and family researcher Dr. Judith Wallerstein regarding joint custody:
Judith Wallerstein, in her book Second Chances writes that "[s]adly, when joint custody is imposed by the court on families fighting over custody of children the major consequences of the fighting are shifted onto the least able members of the family--the hapless and helpless children. The children can suffer serious psychological injury when this happens."
Whether or not joint custody will work depends on the children and the parents. Judith Wallerstein says, "Joint physical custody depends a great deal of the child's capacity to move back and forth. If the child is a school age child, the child must be able to make friends and maintain them in two neighborhoods. Kids complain all the time that they miss birthday parties and sleep-overs, and that their playmates forget when they are coming. They must be able to maintain their activities like team sports, music, etc. They must feel wanted in both homes by step-parents or lovers and not playing second fiddle to child who is always there and says, "This is my house." She points out that "joint custody also depends on the flexibility of parents; their willingness to believe the other parent who says Jimmy is ill, or Jimmy does not want to come and their willingness to modify their schedules for the changing needs and wishes of the growing child. And it depends on the jobs that parents have, their other commitments, whether they travel alot, and their partners too."
I have a funny feeling that mom&stepmom is going to ignore what a noted researcher who has extensively studied joint custody for over two decades had to say about it.
Yes, joint custody should never be ordered when there is abuse, but abuse is not the only issue regarding joint custody. The most important question is how will the children handle it; can they handle it? In all the fathers' rights and second wife discussions about presumptive joint custody, it is all about dad's rights and not about what the children need at a given point in their lives. Children's needs are given lip service to disguise that the real focus is giving into the guy's demands.
Custody should be determined on a case-by-case basis, and most often it is. Child custody should not be treated in a cookie-cutter fashion, which is what presumptive joint custody does. It placed the demands of adults - mostly the dad who would otherwise be a noncustodial father -over the needs of children.
Posted by: The Countess at Aug 24, 2005 5:06:45 PM
Geez. I was talking about my husband's ex's kids with her new husband. She has a son and a daughter with her husband that have nothing to do with us. I imagine scenarios where her hypocrisy slaps her in the face years down the road. Lots of people who have witnessed injustice do the same. Nothing wrong with that.
Now for you to claim that I started the problems in custody/visitation really reveals more about you than me. More than anything it says something about how small minded you are. You appear to unilaterally believe that custodial mothers are incapable of abusing their position and lashing out at their ex's through their children. You also appear to unilaterally assume that anyone who feels stress from the situation is meddling in it. My husband's relationship to his daughter and our daughter affects him and how he feels and copes with it affects me. When his ex refuses to abide by the schedule and does not give make up time or when she doesn't put his name on their daughter's emergency card at school, I care. It doesn't mean it's my responsibility to do anything about it, but I still care. When my husband feels like his role is erased in one of his children's life, I feel for him and it causes stress and I enjoy talking to other women who face similar issues.
I started out by stating that the Second Wive's Club was misrepresented. You didn't need them? Good for you. I found that venting on their site helped me (and the other stepmothers) deal with feelings of anger rather than acting on them or expressing them inappropriately. Your mocking that says something about your pettiness and selfishness.
I'm not looking for your sympathy. I say you lack empathy because you clearly can not imagine an argument other than your own. I know that your experience is possible, it happened to you and I have friends who have successfully been able to share custody with their exes. But can you imagine an experience like mine?
It's also telling that you didn't address the time share parenting you have as a stepmom. Maybe you ARE happy to hardly see your stepkids? Perhaps you don't have children with your current husband that your stepchildren count as siblings. And if you see your stepkids often enough, then you don't really have the same problem we do, do you?
Posted by: mom&stepmom at Aug 24, 2005 5:24:48 PM
"There is an overwhelming amount of evidence of damage done to boys and girls who grow up without fathers as well."
Oh, geez, not that crap again. Fatherlessness garbage has long ago been discredited. It's official. You bore me. Take your propaganda elsewhere.
Posted by: The Countess at Aug 24, 2005 5:26:21 PM
You are positively nuts. Try talking to grown ups who grew up without one of their parents? What is your problem? No one wants to grow up without either of their parents. Why would you argue against that?
Posted by: at Aug 24, 2005 5:30:44 PM
Maybe she's happy to not disclose all sorts of deeply personal information on the internet. Anything "personal" is about the latest recipe she tried, a movie they saw, or maybe a "this is why I can't post for a bit" update. If you read her posts, you'll notice she doesn't use up lots of bandwidth trashing her ex husband or her husband's ex wife. She focuses on the law and family research. Just sayin'.
Posted by: Sheelzebub at Aug 24, 2005 5:31:11 PM
mom&stepmom, I have had no problems with my husband's ex. We see his son just fine. I haven't created any problems, and my husband hasn't created any problems. We haven't had problems for ten years. He pays $1,000 a month in child support, and it's due to end soon. I thought I'd mention the child support because so many second wives have made child support a big issue. The reason why I have never needed to whine on a Second Wife's forum is because I never created any problems that led to a lot of animosity between myself, my husband, his ex, and their son. That quality seems to be lacking in a lot of second wives, who seem to live to meddle and throw fuel on a fire they set themselves, or that their husband's have set. My husband never took the "advice" of fathers' rights groups that urged him to fight for his "rights", which is code for "give your ex-wife a lot of grief".
Really, enough already. You bore me. I'm not going to waste my time responding to you anymore. It was fun for a while, but now I have better things to do. Enjoy your misery. You seem to. ;)
Posted by: The Countess at Aug 24, 2005 5:37:36 PM
"Clearly you've never needed the second wives club. I have. I'm a mom & a step mom. My husband and I have been involved in a bitter custody battle with the mother of his daughter (now 12) for the past 6 years and it has been a living nightmare."
You monster putting a little girl and her mother through the stress of a SIX YEAR CUSTODY FIGHT.
There must be a special place in hell for stepmonsters like you.
You just made me puke all over my keyboard.
Posted by: NYMOM at Aug 31, 2005 7:53:21 PM
"Of course I'm not a Phyllis Schafly fan. I'm simply pointing out her hypocrisy. I know she didn't really give a flying ---- about sahm's in the 70s or now. She's basically an opportunist. Fathers Rights is "hot" right now, so she's jumping on that bandwagon, even if it means screwing over the women she claimed she was defending before -- traditional wives and mothers."
But Silverside I'm not so sure of this...
I'm just recently seeing the connection myself between Feminists and Mens Rights Advocates. It's really takes time to figure it out.
You have to almost ignore what they say and try to just look for what they are actually supporting before you can discern the truth.
I mean I only came to the realization of how similar they were a few months ago when I was going on different boards (feminists and MRAs) but having the same old tired arguments with BOTH.
Many current (and former) stay-at-home mothers are frankly very dissatified with feminists but don't have any other 'official' group to look to. So the first inclination when looking for support is to look to the supposed enemies of feminists and seek allies there. You know the enemies of my enemy are my friends.
However, it is not always quite so simple. Any stay-at-home mothers or others who are disatisfied with feminists and looking for allies are going to be sadly disappointed with MRAs. That's for sure.
They support gender neutral custody just like feminists do. AND are just as strongly for women being registered and eventually drafted for front line combat as NOW and other feminist's groups are.
Basically both groups feel that gender is a social construct and that there is nothing essential about a man or a woman's role. Either can be a marine or a mother, it's just a question of early socialization and training.
BOTH hate stay-at-home mothers with a passion as they fly in the face of their whole androgynous social construct.
This is not obvious however for a while until you hang around BOTH for a period of time.
So, I could understand Phyllis Schafly looking to MRAs for support against feminism's worse excesses YET I'd be surprised if she is still in their corner a year or two from now. As I've seen the longer women like her get to know them, the more disenchanted they get.
Actually there is a woman commentator right now on one of their bigger internet news sites who is seeing the light and probably getting ready to move on...she was a former stay-at-home mother herself and is just getting fed up with listening to MRA crap. It's the same thing as hanging around with a bunch of feminists, where you have to be under constant assault for deciding to stay home and raise your own kids instead of using the nearest daycare center.
Posted by: NYMOM at Aug 31, 2005 8:20:15 PM
I would say that there are plenty of men with "no history of abusive behaviour" according to their wives, who are actually abusive in one way or another.
So I wouldn't be surprised if the 70% was actually a conservative figure.
Sadly, most emotionally & verbally abused women don't even know they're being abused. They just wonder why they're so unhappy, so unsure of themselves... Many simply believe that's just how relationships are, or even think they deserve it.
And a lot of physically abused women don't even realize what they're experiencing is physical abuse.
Like I've heard of women who say that their husbands are only verbally abusive... but then go on to tell about incidents that are clearly physical abuse!
Anyway, while I think a little venting can be very healthy... Sometimes it can lead to STAYING in that anger thinking... instead of progressing out of anger and into thinking patterns that lead to more tranquility, and thereby better coping with the problems.
Wallowing in resentment towards others is not really condusive to getting on well with those others.
Posted by: Chloe at Aug 31, 2005 11:54:39 PM
This is what feminism is: Men have responsibilities, women have rights, and children have their lives ruined. Anybody who says children do just fine without fathers is a fucken idiot. They need both parents, otherwise they will end up just like you - stupid and ignorant. I just hope people like you don’t even have children, so the earth my clean up from a waste like you in few years. Oh, and countess (who ever fuck you are), go eat some shit, its good for you, you stupid bitch.
Posted by: Antifeminist at May 26, 2006 3:15:13 PM