The Problem With Today's Feminism

The Problem With Today's Feminism
by Rachel Alexander
3 August 2003

Feminists: Fighting for women's right to be dependent upon men.

Feminism claims to empower women to become the equals of men. Yet the painful truth is that feminism has gradually metamorphosed into a movement that trains women to gain government imposed advantages over men, while at the same time remaining dependent upon men’s money and the government, all under the false rhetoric of “rights” and “empowerment.”

Women have made great strides over the last century in areas where they were not historically equal to men; they gained the right to vote, they removed the barriers to traditionally male professions, and they changed the way society looked at them. Women are no longer viewed as primarily “nurturing” or “emotional” creatures, but are judged on their individual qualities.
Consequently, this has left the feminist movement with very little left to do for women, other than helping women in less fortunate countries. To remain relevant in the U.S. and other democratic countries, feminists have championed odd issues, issues that are not about women’s equality, but are about getting one-up on men.

Abortion is the most obvious example. Feminists like abortion because it allows women to control a decision that involves both a man and a woman, and this power can be used to really hurt a man by aborting his child. Yet aborting children does not help women become equal to men. To the contrary, it devalues women’s ability to bring life into the world, gives them a guilty conscience, and allows men to have sex with women and leave them, which is a practice that society should be trying to stop, not encourage. Never mind that girls are aborted more often than boys. Abortion is the number one “right” that feminists support, and feminist groups like the National Organization of Women consider abortion the number one issue facing women.

What is interesting about this is that women in general do not agree with the feminists on this issue. A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that a majority of both men and women equally oppose abortion except in very limited circumstances. Around 57% of both men and women oppose abortion except in cases where the mother or fetus might be harmed, or there was rape or incest involved. Clearly, this is not an issue women’s groups should be championing, considering most women are not in favor of mass legal abortion, and it is no more of an issue for them than it is for men.

When it comes to issues involving the family, feminists promote an agenda that keeps women dependent on men and the government. They are adamant that fathers should pay large amounts of child support when a mother and father split up, and they teach ex-wives that they are entitled to alimony from their ex-husbands, even if the ex-wife was the one responsible for the marriage breaking up. Instead of encouraging women to support themselves, or to obtain better careers like the men so they could perhaps become as successful and educated as the men, feminists train women to become dependent on their ex-boyfriends and husbands, even after they are no longer together. NOW lobbies against shared parenting, instead urging women to obtain sole custody of their children. Where is the “equality” here? Fathers' rights groups, on the other hand, generally support joint custody. Apparently, it is no longer about equality for feminists, but using the government to obtain more power than men, while remaining dependent on their money.

Feminist created “domestic violence” laws serve as another way to give women an upper hand over men while keeping them dependent on men and the government. Domestic violence laws are not necessary, since there are already well-established laws in place preventing assault and battery. But feminists wanted to give women an advantage in the home over their husbands and boyfriends by teaching them to involve the government in order to win verbal arguments.

Domestic violence laws now include “glaring looks” and “financial violence,” whatever that means. Somewhere less than twenty percent of all domestic violence calls even involve an allegation of assault. Domestic violence laws give women an edge over men because men are five to nine times less likely to call the police over a dispute than women are. Police reports and restraining orders play a large role in deciding child custody issues, so the more a woman calls the police, the better chances she has at obtaining custody of any mutual children along with “free” child support.

Affirmative action is another area feminists champion that trains women to be dependent on the government in order to get ahead of men. Instead of encouraging women to work as hard as men, feminists teach women that they should use the government to artificially get ahead of men, which excludes men from positions they were better qualified for. How is this about equality or rights? It is not, it is based on the premise that women are not as capable as men and need extra help from the government in order to get ahead of – not just be equal to - men.

It is true that women do not make as much money on average as men do, because women tend to pick careers that pay less. Yet instead of focusing on encouraging women to choose tougher majors and more ambitious careers, feminists urge women to take Women’s Studies and other touchy-feely majors that pay less than traditionally male areas.

Feminists efforts in these areas have successfully created a new type of woman – a woman who thinks of herself as a victim, chooses to underachieve, uses the government to give herself artificial advantages over men, and remains economically dependent on men. How feminists can continue claiming that they are about empowerment and supporting women’s rights is flabbergasting. Their record today demonstrates that their agenda is doing little to benefit today’s modern women. Their current leaders are women like Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton, who do not conjure up images of women who stand for equality with men. Instead, they are women who became powerful because of their husbands’ success, and strike most people as angry women who want to punish men. They would not understand what women’s equality is really about, because they really do not want to become equal to men, they would rather use the government to give themselves artificial advantages over men, while finding nothing wrong with relying on men for their money.

What is sad about this approach is that it only hurts women. Women who underachieve do not become the Einsteins, Beethovens, or Bill Gates’ of the world. Cheating to climb to the top does not instill the values necessary to become successful. If women are handed advantages by the government, and handed money from their ex-husbands, they are not going to develop the drive to work hard for success.

NOW’s membership numbers reveal its uselessness to women. NOW claims membership numbers of 280,000. Its equivalent organization on the right, Concerned Women for America, has over 500,000 members. The National Women’s Coalition for Life has over 1.5 million members. Apparently, women today see through the feminist message that tells them they are inferior and need to be dependent on men, and are choosing to join women’s groups that better reflect their needs. It makes you almost feel sorry for today’s feminists, they don’t even realize how embarrassing they are to women.

Rachel Alexander is a former Assistant Attorney General for the State of Arizona, and is currently an attorney for GoDaddy.com in Scottsdale, Arizona. Go Daddy is the No. 1 registrar of net new domains and a provider of complementary products and services. The viewpoints expressed in this column are not the viewpoints of GoDaddy.com nor its affiliated companies.

End

Hon_Rick_Barker:_Family_Law_Section_Executive_Committee_-_dinner_Rotorua

Family Law Section Executive Committee - dinner Rotorua

There is a real mood of willingness for the Family Court system to be brought into the 21st Century.

---------------------------------

There is a real mood of willingness for the Family Court system to be brought into the 21st Century. As family changes involve step parents and children, single parents and extended family - the role of the family court changes.

The government is listening to what practitioners envisage for the court.
We talk about wanting more openness, but at the same time we must be confident that families won't get caught up in a media circus and lose their privacy.

Generally for people to need a family court, things are not going so well in their lives, so everyone involved is dealing with many different emotions.

It is my job and the role of you all here tonight to make the rocky road as smooth as possible.

The government announced a $73 million budget package to improve the courts by injecting money into new technology, staffing and facilities.

I am just quickly going to read over some of the initiatives that are coming up:


Non-Judge Led Mediation

The government is investing in a pilot of non judge-led mediation that will run in the North Shore, Hamilton, Porirua and Christchurch Family Courts over 2005. The aim of this initiative is to test ways of assisting parties to resolve differences through providing faster access to mediation services. This pilot is part of the Government's response to the Law Commission's report Dispute Resolution in the Family Court.


Counselling for Couples

· Presently couples' counselling is only available for heterosexual couples, both married and defacto.
· But this could well change to include same sex couple because of a proposed amendment to the Care of Children Bill.


Family Court Website

· I really enjoyed launching the revised Family Court Website the other week because the pages for children were just so chatty and unfrightening. It has pages that state the type of questions that a child might ask ie is it my fault, where will I live, do I have to like my parents friends?

· It has great information about how to get to court and what a courtroom looks like, Access to Court forms and guidelines for their use

· Some Depersonalised judgments of Family Court cases are also going up on the site but Judge Boshier (say bosha) will be able to talk more about that.


IT
· I have just been visiting some Australian courts and was very impressed with the IT they are using to link up information between agencies and courts and would like to see some of that in use over here,


Media Access to the Family Court

· As you all know, media are currently prohibited access to any Family Court Hearings. But recently the Select Committee has put forward recommendations under the Care of Children's Bill that will alter this in the following ways:
· 'Accredited media' representatives be allowed to attend Family Court hearings;
· and media would not be permitted to disclose the identity of involved parties.

Family Courts Matters Bill

· Government has agreed to the development of a Family Courts Matter Bill this year.
· There's been no decision yet on matters to be included in the Bill. However, there are a number of improvements which the Law Commission, in its report on Dispute Resolution in the Family Court, recommended which may be suitable, including the power for counsellors to recommend a next step in proceedings, extending audience rights at mediation conferences to wider family and whanau, and renaming mediation conferences a settlement conferences.

The government has at the core of its policy and investment the development of Strong Public Services' and it is putting the money where it's mouth is by investing in the courts.

I am also always open to hearing your thoughts and thank you for this invitation to dinner this evening and I look forward to chatting with many of you later.


Thank you.

CANADA: Man ordered to pay pet support

More of the ridiculous becomes reality!

Notice it is a MAN who was ordered to pay...

http://edmonton.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=ed_petsupport20040809

Web Posted Aug 9 2004 12:57 PM MDT

Man ordered to pay pet support

Edmonton - For the first time in Canada, a court has ordered a man to give his ex-wife monthly support payments for their dog.

An Edmonton truck driver has been ordered to pay $200 a month towards the upkeep of Crunchy the St. Bernard.

Court of Queen's Bench Justice Donald Lee rejected Kenneth Duncan's request to pay $25 a month towards feeding the four year old, arguing a dog the size of a St. Bernard would eat quite a bit more than a small breed.

Had Crunchy been a child, the monthly-support payment would have been $691, based on Duncan's annual salary of $84,000.

The court also ordered Duncan to make a retroactive payment of $2,000, and did not give him visiting rights. Besides food, the money will go toward health bills and general care.

U.S. courts are increasingly ruling pets are akin to children. American judges have begun to rule on joint custody, visitation rights and support payments.

The result is a whole new branch of litigation, and there are legal websites dedicated to fighting for the rights of a pet in the event of a divorce.

END