Daddy Custody: Another Loss for Feminism?

Mrs. Unknown considers me a feminist, and, aside from my damn-near ritualistic objectification of women, I'd tend to agree. For the vast majority of my adult life, you could find me Feminism's amen corner, agreeing vociferously with whatever the womyn said. However, I'm starting to wonder if I'm growing more and more conservative with age because I find myself growing less and less in agreement with more things feminists have to say. A wonderful case in point would be last month's feature on Michel Martin's Tell Me More when she had a panel of feminists talking about the rise in fathers' winning custody of their children in divorce settlements.

Basically, with women's gains in the workplace, garnering promotions and subsequent financial remuneration, they are more steadily becoming their families' breadwinners and their men are taking on more child-rearing responsibilities, some even becoming their children's primary caregiver. As a result, when such families go to divorce court, a growing number of these men are winning primary custody of their children.

Though light-years away from divorce myself, I did take an especial interest in the feature. As many of you who have read the ongoing Poohbutt Chronicles know, for some time I was a "stay-at-home-ish" dad. We felt it important that Pooh be home for her first year of life, and, if we could swing it, one of us would stay home with her. It was something I desperately wanted to give my wife, providing for her to stay home, but since I'm still a bum and unknown writer (see the title to this blog), it just wasn't possible. Mrs. Unknown is the breadwinner here. But, since my job is incredibly flexible (if not at all profitable), I stayed home with the kid for 12 hours a day and then worked a few hours at night, then on Saturdays, and the occasional Sunday. It was exhausting but well worth it. Those 16 months Pooh and I stayed together were the greatest gift any man can ask for. I hope one day to possibly be able to return the favor.

So, listening to Tell Me More that day, I was encouraged to hear there were more men like me shedding old gender stereotypes and stepping up to raise their kids. I was also encouraged to hear that the courts were gradually willing to accept that men could indeed fulfill that role--despite the consistently reinforced media message that we are complete, incompetent, bumbling idiots in that arena.

Of course, the women on Tell Me More were in exact opposition to my cheery Mr. Mom viewpoint. They saw these recent court decisions as a punishment against working mothers. They said that, despite feminism's gains, the court still viewed a woman's proper place to be the home. Therefore, if a women had the cojones to work outside the home while having children needing to be raised and have the temerity to earn more than their hubbies, judges were going to castrate these harpies by giving their kids away to their former men. They viewed this new child-custody trend as yet another defeat for feminism.

I don't know if I'm just being a contrarian here, but I actually view it as feminism's victory.

Despite the myths that we've been raised with, it's not as though women did not work outside the home before the '60s/'70s' iteration of the feminist movement. It's just that it was assumed that middle-class women would return home after they got married. Those who didn't were just assumed to be helping their husbands make ends meet. Therefore, women were stuck wading in secretarial pools and other "pink collar" jobs. It was assumed that they either did not possess the ambition, qualifications, and/or character to move up the corporate ladder.

The feminist movement did away with such stereotypes. There is still work to be done. Glass ceilings do still exist, but female doctors, lawyers, and executives are no longer people who raise eyebrows.

Feminism has gradually changed the workplace--though not as rapidly as we would like here in the States. There's still a lot of work to be done with maternity and family leave and childcare. Oh, to be Europe! But it has changed it so much that even men are asking for such things from their employers.

Some men are even asking it of themselves in the home. Though American women are still tasked with most household duties, it is changing for the better. According to a study published last year by the Council on Contemporary Families: "The average woman – employed full or part time – with children is doing two hours less housework per week than in 1965." So, there is a struggle for gender equity going on within the American home. So much so, there are even men willing to stay at home to take on primary caregiving responsibilities.

The fact that the courts are acknowledging these changes and granting men custody is not a sign of defeat for feminism, it is actually the fruits of feminism's victory. While I believe that gender roles have never been static, I think gender role stereotypes generally have been. Women were always supposed to stay home and tend to the house and children while the men always went out there and earned for their families. So, while feminists were out there tearing down the assumptions for the former, they created and encouraged the dismantling of the former.

This is not a zero-sum game, where feminists' victories created men's own defeat. In fact, I think both sexes have gained immeasurably by feminism's gains. In other words, the striving for equality can eventually bring about said equality. It does not confer equality while retaining certain privileges--making one side "more equal" than the other. If a woman is no longer assumed to be inferior in the workplace, it can also mean that she will no longer be assumed to be the superior mistress of the homefront. If a woman can be a CEO, why can't a man cook the meals, change the diapers, and provide "Daddy kisses" to magically heal all booboos?

One panelist complained that judges didn't understand that "a Mommy never stops being a Mommy." What she failed to understand is that a caring father never stops "being a Daddy," either. I know I sure as hell don't.

The main point of this argument, which one panelist pointed out, is that divorce simply is not fair. People are always punished for terminating the marriage contract. It's not fair to the father. It's not fair to the mother. It's not fair to the breadwinner nor the primary caregiver. Each side will have legitimate gripes before, during, and after any divorce settlement. But, most importantly, it is not fair to the children--who never, ever had any say in their parents' getting married nor procreating nor splitting up and forcing them to divide their homes, loyalties, and lives between their feuding parents.

Therefore, the paramount issue in any custody battle is not whether the working mother or stay-at-home father (or vice versa or whatever mutation each side happens to take) are being punished here because no matter how you slice it (absent of abuse, of course) the children are the ones who are ultimately punished here. The primary issue is in whose home will their lives find the most benefit. So, in all honesty, I find it an encouraging sign that our courts are more carefully weighing each family's individual circumstance as opposed to simply relying on steadily "outmoding" gender stereotypes to determine where a child will be happiest.

Read more...

For GOP, Chivalry Ain't Dead But It Sho' Is Tired

Ah yes, I remember it as though it were 5,327 years ago—August 29, 2008, the day America was in love with Sarah Palin. The Alaskan governor was a “breath of fresh air,” a “true Washington outsider,” a lipstick-wearing barracuda hockey mom who was going to take on her own party, reach out to Hillary voters, break the glass ceiling, and Maverick our cares away.

But by Sept. 1, the love affair was pretty much over when questions over her last child’s birth led to the revelation that Palin’s teenage daughter was pregnant. Blindsided, the Republican ranks donned their armor and went on the attack to defend her.

McCain already had to ditch his “experience” argument against Obama with the pick, he was soon forced to spin his earmarks stance (since his running mate had been for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it but after she took the money), and now they had to defend teenage pregnancy, of all things. The Religious Self-Righteous took up the standard, providing a deft flanking maneuver. “Unfortunately,” Family Resource Council president Tony Perkins said, “teenage pregnancy has become all too common in today’s society” (ignoring the fact that this year was the first in 15 that teen pregnancy rates have actually risen and that only 2.2% of teenaged girls get pregnant).

Meanwhile, the main host went on the attack, calling the MSM (mainstream media) “sexist” for raising questions about Palin’s family. Ironically, the “politics of victimization” (as they like to call it) got to feeling so good, the MSM attacks so effective, they kept it up, claiming almost any questioning of Palin was sexist and if they wanted an interview with the princess, they had to show proper “deference”

The press was flummoxed and perplexed. A public official just had to answer to the public (just like Dick Cheney, right?). Interviews were a vital part of campaigning. Why would the GOP want to cloister their damsel? “RaPalinzah, RaPalinzah, let down your raven hair!”

The answer became all too obvious with the guv’s three TV interviews: with misty-eyed Sean Hannity, Palin mechanically recited talking points; she stammered with Charlie Gibson; and totally crashed and burned with Katie Couric (Craven, King, and Spielberg couldn’t combine to make a more perfect horror); the woman is simply not qualified for the position she’s seeking.


Once again, the Republican Crusade was on the march. Bill O’Reilly accused Couric of “gotcha” journalism (obviously, “What newspapers do you read?” is an SAT question). Obviously, she and the entire MSM are in Obama’s pocket. And with his Mohammedan hordes steadily advancing and the Promised Land slipping away, the GOP keeps hacking desperately away. There was Obama’s “lipstick” controversy. In anticipation of a disastrous VP debate, they attacked Gwen Ifill for obvious bias because of her planned book on black politicians “in the age of Obama.” Last week, they even accused Newsweek of sexism because their cover of Our Fair Lady exposes too many wrinkles and unsightly facial hair.

This constant cry of “Moose!!!” seems to be working against the press. Ifill was definitely spooked, never once asserting herself or the rules like she did with Cheney and Roberts four years ago—even when Palin declared she wasn’t going to answer questions and stuck strictly to her talking points. While there are tons of Palin stories in the ether, nothing has stuck like the three-week Jeremiah Wright Fest earlier this year. And even though poll after poll said she lost the debate, conservative and liberal pundits claim she’d actually won.

The marauding GOP machine’s got the press cowering. But with all their bluster, rage, and pyrotechnics, they can’t bludgeon the rest of us into believing that Sarah Palin’s qualified to be VP. In fact, only 39 percent of America now thinks she is.

Some of this might indeed be sexism (it was quite interesting watching old timey feminists questioning Palin’s abilities as a mother). But you can’t combat sexism using the equally sexist chivalric notion of “protecting” Palin. Either she’s capable, knowledge, and experienced enough to be veep, or she’s not. Constantly attacking everyone who even mentions her name, sheltering her from the media, only leads us to assume that she’s not. This tactic is only insulting to her, to feminists and women in general, and to the American people. In fact, we can only assume that this is just a smokescreen, and the louder you scream the more it seems that she must not be qualified and you know it.

So, if she’s worth the position, then “Free Sarah!” This past week, with her “palling around with terrorists” and whooping up the squires and yeomen of your party into a lynching party frenzy, we know the woman’s up for the attack. Let us she if she’s actually capable of defending herself.

Besides, your throats must be getting raw by now with all your screaming. McCain, for one, looked utterly exhausted in last week’s debate. He looked totally demoralized having to defend Obama against his running mate’s attacks. He needs a break. And now the Palin clan has been found guilty of ethics violations in Troopergate? Damn. Now, I know Johnny can’t throw the princess under the bus, but perhaps he should maybe toss her into the moat. You know, just to see how a barracuda fairs against the piranhas of the press.


Read more...

A New Kind of Man

Unlike most people, I don’t believe that gender roles have ever been written in stone. I don’t believe there has ever truly been a time when “girls were girls and men were men.” I definitely believe there has always been misogyny. I just don’t think that all our forefathers were John Wayne and every woman, June Cleaver. Within every relationship there is negotiation, and I’m sure within every marriage there has probably never been a strict delineation of who did what every and all the time.

Despite what conservatives say, identity politics is nothing new. There has always been cultural battles over what a “real” man and “real” woman were. I once read about one cultural critic excoriating WWII vets for being too effeminate, letting their women work in the ‘50s. And of course, there are the Platonic love codes that told us “real” men could never love an “inferior” woman—best to go with little boys.

Personally, I’ve never bought any of it. Who are you to tell me what a real man is? Besides, I’m an artist and a proud nerd. While no Alan Alda, I’ve never been a “man’s man” (still trying to figure out what that means). Sure, I played sports as a kid, but flat feet and asthma led me to the books. I chased the P like any other fine, young gentleman. While in the Czech Republic, I drank and fought so much that they deported me and prohibited me from reentering the country for seven years. And when I worked on a loading dock, I did have to tone down my aggression levels, but I’ve never been hard, a “gangsta,” or a “thug.” Nor have I ever wanted to be. But I’ve really never really been a softie, either.

All that changed a year ago with the birth of my daughter. As soon as a lock of her hair popped into the world, I was flooded with so much emotion, I damn near cried on the spot. And the sappiness hasn’t really stopped. Now, I know a lot of this is natural: our levels of testosterone drop as we age; and my wife read that a baby’s caregiver’s estrogen levels increase (I guess so we don’t leave them in the woods or ingest their heads, or something). Since I spend at least 11 hours a day taking care of Poohbutt, I guess mine remain pretty high.

But damn, it can be annoying sometimes. I used to be fairly cool and detached. My Dad used to chastise me for being too “cavalier.” But now, it’s all switched up on me. Things that I used to scoff at as corny now tug at my heartstrings. Watching an old episode of Freaks and Geeks, I choked up when Bill had a heart-to-heart with the gym teacher who was dating his mom. When friends now close an email with “Love,” I don’t go like Riley with an, “Ooh, you gay.” Instead, I think (earnestly, no less), “Yeah. I love you, too, man.” If there’s a loving scene with a father and daughter, my chest gets all warm and fuzzy. I can’t stand hearing about dead children. I used to hate the local news because all their “special reports” are designed to scare parents. Now, I can’t watch the local news because all those “special reports” scare me. It’s so bad, I’m sure if Bambi came on, I’d run from the room screaming and crying.



Last night, during the debate, was no different. Joe Biden got me when he started talking about losing his wife and daughter in a car accident. My eyes genuinely started steaming. Then, when he said that “Don’t tell me I don’t know what it’s like to raise a family because I’m not a woman” and he had to stop because he was about to cry, I damn near lost it myself.

My wife and I often talk about gender (gender analysis is part of her job). Right after that moment, she was champing at the bit, wanting to discuss it. “How interesting,” she said. “That’s something Palin couldn’t do.”



Intellectually, I was ready to respond. After all, this past year has been choked with race and gender politics, hasn’t it? If I’d been capable, I would’ve said, “Well, Hillary choked up in New Hampshire, and that worked for her. But Ferraro, Thatcher, a Golda Meir or Indira Ghandi, I think they would’ve been crucified as soft or mentally unstable.” Then I probably would’ve gone on: “This evolution of men and crying is interesting, though. I mean, Edwin Muskie’s political ambitions were dashed when he choked up. Bill Clinton had that biting-the-lower-lip-“I-feel-your-pain” schtick. But this…”

But that Biden moment had me. I don’t tknow if it was manufactured or not, but the Senator, at that moment, seemed so real. So vulnerable. And I (the punk I no doubtedly am) was just caught up in the speculative horror of losing my wife and daughter. And he had two injured sons he had to care for at the same time. Damn. I couldn’t imagine it. Yet, I was trapped doing just that—all misty-eyed, and shit. Annoyed, I didn’t know whether to go to a bar, down a couple of shots, and slug the next guy I saw or just grab my daughter and let her fall asleep on my chest. Damned estrogen. Of course, I chose the latter.

Read more...

Palin Comparison

Much like the rest of you, I spent much of Friday in confusion. That maverick John McCain really threw us for a maverick loop with his maverick choice (did I mention John McCain is a maverick?) for VP. Like the rest of you, I had no clue who the hell Sarah Palin was, and, before I could even start to wrap my head around her bio, my boy TRF (a Republican staffer working on the Hill) sent me a triumphal email over the pick. We traded our usual, faux-combative emails where I warned him, though not knowing why, that the GOP was going to live to regret this one.

At the time I couldn’t figure out McCain’s logic. I’m thinking that most Hillary Clinton supporters are middle-aged, pro-choice feminists. Especially with Roe v. Wade in the 5-4 balance and Ruth Bader Ginsburg stunt-doubling for the Crypt Keeper, how would they find the NRA, pro-life governor at all appealing?

Just because she’s a woman?

And why would McCain negate his most effective argument against Obama—his lack of experience—by nominating someone with arguably less experience to be a “heartbeat away” from the Presidency? Sure, I’ll admit that she has roughly two years of executive experience. But it’s Alaska, for godsakes—one of the smallest, most homogenous states of the Union which gets the most federal funds of any other and every citizen gets an annual welfare check from the oil companies just for living there. How hard could it be to govern that place? Even W. couldn’t mess that one up!

And now, with every day revealing a new surprise about the woman, I’m even more baffled. The abstinence-only advocate has a pregnant teenage daughter (note: many conservatives are claiming this reportage unfair, that family should be off-limits, but Palin’s been the one touting her own “hockey mom” credentials, her military-bound son, and her Down’s syndrome baby as reasons to vote for her; if it was fair to scrutinize Kerry’s military record since he brought it up, why isn’t Palin’s motherhood fair game—after all, only 2.2% of teens get pregnant in this country which makes her situation extremely rare and Palin advocates abstinence-only, which clearly isn’t working in her own family). The maverick Palin hired a Washington lobbyist to get $27 million in earmarks for her town of 9,000 when she was mayor—the same amount Boise, ID, population 100,000, got—wrote a letter to Ted Stevens requesting $200 million in earmarks for the state while governor, and was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. She’s also apparently a supporter and/or member of an Alaskan secessionist party. The Pentacostal governor, like our President, also believes she’s doing God’s work—even when trying to get a $30 billion natural gas pipeline built through Alaska. “I think God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that.”

While I definitely don’t understand McCain’s logic in choosing her, I see why he would choose a woman. The Republican brand is rusted, and demographic studies show that it will continue to erode. In less than 40 years, there will be no majority race in the United States. Any party that wants to survive has to reach out to women and minorities.

The GOP, however, has a lot of recent history to overcome. They were the “party of Lincoln,” as they often claim, but those Radical Republican days are long gone. Black folks stayed Republican until 1960 when JFK made that famous phone call to Coretta Scott King while MLK was in jail. After his loss to Kennedy, the card-carrying NAACP member, Richard Milhouse Nixon devised his Southern Strategy, exploiting whites’ anxieties and racism to electoral victory. Those anti-segregation former Dixiecrats also jumped to the GOP ship, and ever since we have had “Welfare Queens,” “reverse racism,” and Willie Horton ads. Blacks now feel quite alienated by the GOP and feel that that party exploits prejudice to blacks’ detriment and their gain. Most black folks can’t help but feel suspect to any overtures made by Republicans, still smarting over past slights.

I don’t think Latinos feel much better about the party. After all, it’s the GOP that drives 187-like, heavily-racialized anti-immigration crusades, often claiming that “those people” can never truly become American, how they ruin American culture, you know the drill.

Much to their defense, it was also the Republicans who first advocated for the Equal Rights Amendment. It was an official part of their platform from WWII until the 1970s—when Phyllis Schafly had it expunged. Ever since, they have been notorious in excoriating “Feminazis,” being anti-choice, and generally deriding most feminist causes.

This is the legacy current Republicans have to overcome if they truly want to reach out to women and minorities. And they will have to run female and minority candidates. But running those candidates isn’t the point. It is not simply a matter of throwing up a black, Latino, Asian, or woman. A black candidate can be just as racist as any Klansman, and many of the (to quote a friend) “self-loathing Negroes” the GOP throws up makes you wonder. And Phyllis Schafly has proven that a woman can be just as sexist as any male chauvinist pig.

I don’t know if Sarah Palin’s a sexist, or not. I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt. I see that she has definitely energized the conservative base. But I don’t see how her views and her record will appeal to liberal or moderate women—self-described feminists or not. I also don’t see why, if McCain were compelled to choose a female running mate, why he wouldn’t pick someone with more of a proven track record, a Christine Todd Whitman, Kay Bailey Hutchison, or Condoleeza Rice, a woman who one might not agree with but one who has earned her place at the table. When you compare Palin to these women or Hillary Clinton, she is most definitely lacking.

In fact, the Palin pick smells a bit like the choice of Clarence Thomas. The only thing that qualified that man for the Supreme Court was that he was black and conservative. It was the condescending tokenism of his choice that had outraged blacks. So far, it seems the same, tragic logic was used for Sarah Palin. With her spotty, short record, it is hard to fathom what qualifies her to be veep except that she’s young, conservative, and, to quote a leering Orrin Hatch on Charlie Rose last night, “quite feminine.”

I don’t know if feminists will ultimately end up as resentful over her choice as blacks are over Thomas. I do have a feeling, though, that they aren’t going to fall for the okey-doke nor vote for McCain just because he’s picking a woman to be second-in-command. The Republicans do need to reach out, but nobody’s looking for that type of tokenism. The next time they decide to pick a female for a prominent position, they need to make sure that that candidate truly and sincerely addresses female issues—such as equal pay for equal work, health care, education, maternity and paternity leave. The same holds true for minority issues. Until they do that, no amount of tokenism will erase their legacy, and they will forever be the party of Phyllis Schafly and the Southern Strategy—and will probably be relegated to the dust bin of history.

Read more...