Once upon a time journalism was about investigating and reporting on an issue in a balanced way from all perspectives of an argument. Recent times have seen a proliferation of self-indulgent feminist writers who spout misandric nonsense and infuse feminist propaganda into the mainstream media as though it were orthodox truth.
Chloe Angyal is an Australian novice feminist writer, who has moved to the US to cross-pollinate dogma with her American Radfem sisters. The Australian Fem-fax media group recently published an opinion piece of hers titled Thank feminism for an ever-improving line of fathers. ”
Line of fathers? What an unusual turn of phrase. For me the title conjured up images of fathers lined up outside family courts, outside Child Support Agency offices; lines of fathers alienated from their children, falsely accused of child abuse or domestic violence; lines of mourners at the funeral processions of fathers who commit suicide. I imagined lines at paternity testing centers, in the debtor’s prisons; even lines struck though the fathers names on birth certificates, legally replaced with the mother’s lesbian partners name.
I also thought about the people who will line up at the forthcoming Fatherless games in the London, and the earlier lines of fatherless rioting youth in that city. Yes the rise of feminism is arguably responsible for the greatest epidemic of fatherlessness ever, yet Miss Chloe considers this “ever-improving” and mentions not one of these issues in her article.
The feminism that burst into being when my father was in his early 20s declared that women had the right to have careers. And, it insisted that, for women to have careers and children, men would have to shoulder more of the work of parenting.
Well not exactly, Chloe, You see, women’s innate drive toward hypergamy ensures that they still want all the resources that a husband can provide. So rather than increasing the effective parenting of children by greater involvement of both parents, infants as young as 6 weeks old are pushed en masse into the emotionally empty environment of the feminist/Marxist inspired day care industry.
Feminism created an economic milieu in which the previous ability of a family to live in comfort on one wage was replaced by an economic imperative for many families to require 2 wages, just to survive. Furthermore, any couples that exercised their choice and elected for the wife to be a stay at home mum (even if just through their children’s, preschool years), found the wife denigrated and ostracized by rabid feminists, as indeed they still are.
This passage from Maggie Hamilton’s 2007 book, What Men Don’t Talk About, sums up the situation in Australia.
There’s no conflict about this: Australian women don’t like it when their men work part-time,’ says Jan van Ours, an international researcher… from Australia’s HILDA (Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia) survey. ‘Australian women want their men in full-time jobs. They are least satisfied when they, themselves, have a job of more than 50 hours, and most satisfied when they are working part-time, or not at all.’ Happily, Australian men are in lockstep: they too prefer to work full-time – although, unlike women, they don’t mind if their partners work full-time, part-time, or not at all.
Rather than feminism, I suggest that it is the easygoing nature of men, their adaptability and desire to please women – whatever women’s choices be – that has facilitated much of women’s progress into the workforce, as well as their option to avoid professional life altogether.
Australian labor force statistics confirm, however, that fathers continue to have little choice. Part time and stay at home dads remain a rarity, regardless of how many men would jump at the chance of being one.
Fathers working away from family and children are historically a relatively recent occurrence, commencing with industrialization. Traditionally fathers were intimately connected with family and children and had well defined roles in the upbringing of both boys and girls but especially the initiation of young men into manhood. This fact of recent history if conveniently forgotten by feminists whose memory however for any instance of perceived injustice against women stretches back to prehistory.
Statistics indicate that decades later parents in two-career families have yet to figure out how to split that work equally.
Not surprisingly the “statistics” she is referring to are not referenced. However when feminists speak of division of domestic labor they refer only to tasks traditionally performed by women and exclude from their calculations tasks traditionally performed by men. Excluded items include chores such as yard, house and vehicle maintenance. When researchers do consider these things the conclusions are quite different:
However, if we consider the full range of domestic tasks, including the outdoor activities that are the traditional tasks that men do, then we ￼see a more equal division of labor. 
The focus of feminists remains on childcare activities and indoors housework as though these were the only tasks needed to finance and run a household. Additional factors such as travelling times for fathers who generally have to travel longer distances to work are not considered, nor is adjustment made for higher incomes generally earned by men for the good of the household even when most spending decisions regarding that income are made by the woman.
Chloe then utters this absurd statement:
One of the greatest challenges feminism has faced is getting men on board.
How surprising, that an ideology founded on the hatred of men, that sees men as disposable sources of finance, sperm donors, that paints men as innately violent monsters from whom wimmen-and-children must be protected by gender biased laws and disregard for constitutional rights, that has declared destruction of the family as a central objective – how surprising that men are not flocking to get on board!
Well of course some men do flock to get on board and Angyal quotes one such male born feminist, Michael Kimmel and describes him as “a leading thinker in masculinity studies.” Nope sorry, calling bullshit on this one. Masculinities as a branch of gender studies, which is a branch of feminism, might be the breeding ground for white knights such as Kimmel and our very own Michael Flood, who wish to engineer modern men into servile androgynous drones of women but they know little about the realities and challenges facing ordinary modern men. It is only through the MRM and initiatives such as New Male Studies that these challenges will be addressed.
Other silliness from Chloe’s article:
Feminism is one of the best things that ever happened to fatherhood.
Sure it is Chloe; please see above for a few of the many reasons that feminism is actually the worst thing that ever happened to fatherhood.
Thanks to feminism, the men my friends and I marry will be engaged, emotionally present fathers.
Those men, some of whom are just meeting their future spouses, will feel the positive influence of feminism every day.
Sure they will, Chloe! Men all over the world are waking each morning and bowing down in thanks to the wonders of feminism. You are clearly well versed on social trends.
I wonder exactly how many feminist trollops are getting married these days? Are not marriage and family institutions of oppression rejected by feminism? Recent US data does not look good for their prospects as young men seeing the inherent dangers of involving themselves with the narcissistic and entitled female end products of feminist engineering, and facing a greater than 50% chance of divorce, financial ruin, and little if any access to their children are increasingly rejecting marriage and going their own way.
Aware of the trend for American men who do seek partners and family to look outside their own country, feminists aim to further control men though legislation, rather then looking inside their own hearts and acknowledging that they are a big part of the problem rather then part of the solution.