Author Topic: Offspring  (Read 4625 times)

Mandos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5759
    • View Profile
    • http://politblogo.typepad.com/
Offspring
« on: October 30, 2006, 10:36:03 PM »
Here is an article from the pro-feminist men's online magazine Adonis Mirror:

http://adonismirror.com/06122006_leader ... s_gods.htm

Quote
The ultimate irony of this development is that pro-feminism itself has become utterly obsessed with fatherhood: while it has long been agreed upon that the protection of paternity was the catalyst for the construction of a patriarchal world, it has now become the preferred site for pro-feminist resistance.

. . .

Being a “good father” can itself be an antifeminist act. While Dads and Daughters talks a good talk on racism and class issues, despite their own lilywhite appearance, it seems unlikely that most of their members would be willing to put the livelihood of someone else’s daughter on equal footing with their own. Childrearing today is seen as a competitive, zero-sum enterprise, where a man should desire to give his own children every advantage over those of his rivals. While sons have been the traditional vehicle for passing down both racial and class based privileges, daughters serve increasingly well in that capacity, no small thanks to good fathers. Feminism requires the violation this competitive ethic. Yet the masculine code of honor asks that men not embarrass themselves or other fathers—by questioning their capacity to “provide”—by pointing out the unfair nature of the competitive system.

. . .

With all the attention paid to fatherhood it is impossible to question how it is that men became fathers in the first place. Not only are the sins of the past located ever more firmly in the past, as in the case of the Beastie Boys in their transition to Beastie Dads, it increasingly rewards those males who operated, both socially and sexually, from frameworks of privilege. In this climate it becomes unnecessary to ask whether or not the act of impregnating women is a pro-feminist act, a question that should be a fundamental one, and yet it is elided by presuming fatherhood as inevitable. While many pro-feminist writers are correctly attempting to de-gender parenthood in order to oppose Far-Right groups that are seeking to scientifically inscribe the “masculine-role” as vital for healthy children, the debate has already passed by an important point of contention. This is for the benefit of all men as men, no matter their feelings are on parenthood versus fatherhood, as they are all free to take advantage of societal-wide encouragement of women to engage in “high risk” sexual activities.

. . .
Pundits in pseudo pro-feminism might go on and on with Hallmark style sentiments about how “anyone can be a father but it takes a someone special / a real man to be a dad,” but the above scenario demonstrates that no male raised in our society can truly transcend the messages we receive about biological parenthood: we all believe ourselves to be the fittest of the survivors. For all of the talk about new or alternative families entertained in progressive circles, all too often these efforts come out looking exactly like the families that Dr. James Dobson would like to legislate, only with different players cast for the parts.

brebis noire

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
    • View Profile
Offspring
« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2006, 11:04:41 PM »
Fatherhood, parenting, motherhood: these are about relationships, not competition or getting ahead.

Once we get that through our heads, a lot of the conundrums are erased.

It might be easier if a parent is financially and culturally secure, but it's not a prerequisite.

Oy. I should not have read this, as I am too tired to continue thinking.

Mandos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5759
    • View Profile
    • http://politblogo.typepad.com/
Offspring
« Reply #2 on: October 30, 2006, 11:19:43 PM »
Well, at the same time, people are attached to their biological children and want them to do very well.  He's suggesting that a better world would be one in which men, at least, could be (as a group) as invested in other people's children as their own.  Now many men (and women) *are*, but it isn't the norm, as such.

brebis noire

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
    • View Profile
Offspring
« Reply #3 on: October 31, 2006, 08:21:01 AM »
Well of course that is a Good Thing. It falls in line with the idea that it takes a village to raise a child.

Men who take interest in helping other people's children along, as well as men who are interested in domestic work, who are able to cook, clean, supervise small children and who are all-around conscious that these are Important Things and that They Can Do It Too should be encouraged - nay, *forced* to procreate.

Heh. I really needed to say that this morning.

fern hill

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10640
    • View Profile
    • http://scathinglywrongrightwingnutz.blogspot.com/
Offspring
« Reply #4 on: October 31, 2006, 08:23:50 AM »
I couldn't read that. But I have to say this: A pro-feminist men's magazine called 'Adonis Mirror'?????

Mandos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5759
    • View Profile
    • http://politblogo.typepad.com/
Offspring
« Reply #5 on: October 31, 2006, 10:41:24 AM »
I guess they mean holding up a mirror to masculinity and male self-absorbtion.

Quote
Men who take interest in helping other people's children along, as well as men who are interested in domestic work, who are able to cook, clean, supervise small children and who are all-around conscious that these are Important Things and that They Can Do It Too should be encouraged - nay, *forced* to procreate.


Well, so, I don't think that this specifically was the intention behind those quotes.  Yes, obviously the author believes that this is a good thing, but it's the flip side of it that's interesting.

 

Return To TAT