The primary caregiver fraud

Imagine a society in which when a couple separates or divorces, it is always the father who receives custody of the children. No matter how caring the mother is, no matter how much she wants to remain part of the children’s lives and no matter how much the children want the same thing, she is cut off from them–except to whatever degree the father is willing to let her see them. All this happens, that is, unless the father is utterly dissolute–in which case the courts will then give custody to the mother.

What a terrible place such a society would be! How cruel to women! How cruel to children! What a blessing we don’t live in such a society! Actually, up until sometime in the 19th century, that was the pattern in our society. The immediate reason for this system was economic: the best financial interests of the children were seen as being served by leaving them with the parent who had the financial resources–and that was the father. We might give this judicial doctrine a name. We might call it the “Father-Breadwinner” test for determining which parent gets custody of the children.

Then, gradually, things changed. In part, they changed because the injustice and cruelty to mothers began to be recognised. Then, by early in the twentieth century, the situation had been completely reversed: women were always given custody of the children when a couple separated or divorced. This happened, that is, unless the mother was found to be “unfit”, in which unusual case the father was awarded custody by the courts. After all, mothers are the natural nurturers, are they not? And fathers are the natural providers, are they not? So just give her the kids and have him give her the money to meet their financial needs. We could also give this doctrine a name. We might call it the “Mother-Caregiver” test for assigning custody of the children.

Then, things changed again. Partly because technology kept eroding away the rigid sex roles, people began to see the injustice of automatically cutting fathers off from their children in this fashion. After all, men are not all alike, women are not all alike. Men, too, can and do nurture; women, too, can and do provide financially. The laws were changed so that either parent could get custody of the children. But the judges didn’t change very much. Overwhelmingly, they continued awarding custody to mothers, in spite of the law. We might label their motivating doctrine in this the “Covert Mother-Caregiver” test for deciding custody awards. This regime still exists. Under it, sociological research has found, the large majority of divorces are initiated by women–after all, they are the ones who stand, under this system, to come out of divorce with everything they want.

Out of all of this injustice was born the divorced fathers’ movement. It developed largely because, by this point in history, there had come to be so many divorces: far more individuals were suffering the effects of the Covert Mother-Caregiver doctrine than had done so under the earlier doctrines. So, do the activists in this movement want a return to father preference? Interestingly, they do not. A few ideologues on the fringes argue for a return to “patriarchy”; but overwhelmingly, what the fathers’ rights activists argue for is a new concept designed to be fair to both parents and to the children: shared parenting after divorce.

The Shared Parenting Ideal

The shared parenting concept is comprised of two parts. First, joint legal stewardship of the children. This involves each parent making important decisions for the children’s lives, especially during the separate times when they are residing with that parent. It can be called “joint legal custody”–though as such phrases are standardly interpreted today, far too little decision-making power is given to one of the parents. Second, shared residency, sometimes labeled “joint physical custody”. Ideally, this means spending about equal amounts of time with each parent–although in practice, variations from the ideal are often warranted. Some of the experts who have studied the matter urge that at least 30% of the time be spent with each parent. At last, a system which does not rip one of the parents and the children away from each other. Everyone wins–including the children.

During the period of overt and covert mother-preference, modern feminism was born. This movement professes equality between the sexes, focusing on traditional discriminations against women. It professes rejection of gender stereotypes about how men and women behave, recognising that many of the choices the two sexes make merely reflect conditioning into societal roles. How would they respond to traditional discriminations against men, then, including mother-preference in divorce?

Many feminists–let us call them “egalitarian feminists”–have replied that equality means just what it says; hence, they were willing to share their former advantages with men, just as they expected men to do with them.  Consequently, the egalitarian feminists embraced shared parenting.  Indeed, they could point out, equality in parenting is merely the other side of equality in paid employment. For just as women were traditionally kept out of the paid workforce so they would stay home and care for children personally, men were pressured out of the home and into the paid workforce so they would provide for children financially. In fact, the egalitarians have pointed out, eliminating mother-preference through shared parenting promotes equality for women as well: mothers whose ex-husbands do around half of the childcare will be freer to take their place in the paid workforce. In the US, the National Organization for Women officially endorsed a judicial presumption of joint custody.

Unfortunately, only in the early years was the feminist establishment controlled by the egalitarians. Feminist organizations and government agencies have long since been dominated by the sexist feminists: though they continue using the rhetoric of equality, their actual motive is promotion of women’s self-interest (as they perceive it), not justice. Not only have they worked hard to retain traditional discriminations against men, they have often fought to increase them. On the matter of parenting in particular, they have opposed elimination of mother-preference with every weapon they can muster. No flaming male chauvinists could have been more reactionary in defending their traditional privileges than the sexist feminists have been.

One especially revealing Canadian example lies in the efforts the feminist establishment made, a few years back, to retain the governmental parental-leave benefits which had previously been limited to women. To understand this situation, we must be clear that under Canada’s system of national health insurance, there are no grounds for having a separate category of leave for pregnancy and giving birth; these can be treated the same as any other type of medical leave, on the instruction of a doctor. What parental leave should be for, then, is childcare–and childcare, unlike pregnancy and childbirth, can be performed by either parent. So, then: did Canada’s feminists say to Canada’s government: “Make whatever money can be spared for this purpose equally available to men and women”? After all, given current societal patterns, equal opportunity for parental leave would still be taken advantage of, to a strong degree, mostly by women. Or did the feminist establishment, committed as it has long been to “affirmative action” in the workplace, say anything like “Set up quotas for parental-leave funding, so we can be sure enough men will take advantage of it”? Not on your Nelly, McClung. “We won’t give up a penny of what we’ve had in the past!”, they raged at the federal government. And, of course, the feds caved in, giving fathers a pittance they hoped would satisfy those few in the judiciary who actually think equality means equality.

An American example reveals the sexist-feminist agenda more broadly. Remember Marcia Clark, the O. J. Simpson prosecutor? She needed to put in more time on the job. So did she propose to have her ex-husband, who had much more time available, spend more time taking care of the children? Not on your Emily, Murphy. She applied to get more child support money from her ex-husband, so she could park the kids in daycare and have strangers look after them. When her ex objected to this gross injustice by applying for custody himself, the feminist establishment rose up as one woman and screamed outrage. So there you have it. Sexist feminists, in the familiar phrase, “want to have it all”, the children and the money. It follows that they want fathers to have nothing, other than what individual mothers deign to allow them.

De Facto Discrimination

Sexist feminists are not always this blatant in their bias. Sometimes they are much more subtle. To introduce a key example of this, let me review the difference between de jure discrimination and de facto discrimination. Suppose they passed a law which decreed that descendants of slaves could not vote. Now, this would not be de jure discriminatory toward black people. After all, it doesn’t even mention race or skin color. And besides, some whites are also descendants of slaves, and so they could not vote either; and some blacks are not descendants of slaves and so they could vote. But of course, the great majority of persons thus prevented from voting would be black. Such a law would discriminate de jure against descendants of slaves–it would treat  those persons differently from everyone else, and would do so without any morally legitimate reason. But in addition, it would discriminate de facto against black people, for they would be disproportionately harmed by this unjust law.

Similarly, the old custody laws discriminated de jure against mothers, and later against fathers. Today, the law is de jure gender-neutral. Yet overwhelmingly, it is fathers who lose custody in divorce. Does this mean there is some kind of unjust discrimination against men? Not automatically. For all that statistical fact all by itself can tell us, there might be some legitimate reasons for women getting custody much more often. Other evidence reveals that the judges are in fact strongly biased, overall, against fathers. But that is a subject for another time. Today I want to discuss a criterion for deciding custody which many judges employ, regarding it as not discriminatory toward fathers. Now, at present they have no authorization under Canada’s law to use this criterion. But many in the feminist establishment support them in doing so–indeed, they have been pressing for years to have it enshrined in law.

I speak of the “primary caregiver” doctrine: the claim that sole custody–or else “primary control”–should be awarded, and should be given to the parent who has provided the most care to the children during the marriage. De jure, the criterion is gender-neutral; it explicitly mentions neither mother nor father. But is it wrongfully discriminatory de facto? After all, it seemingly would guarantee, in present societal conditions, that mothers would get custody far more often. Is it fair? Or have the sexist feminists and the sexist chivalrists merely discovered a more subtle way of treating fathers unjustly? Let us see.

Cheating Interpretations

To begin, it is worth remarking how specific proposals for determining who is the “primary caregiver” often reveal their authors’ ulterior sexist motives. For in telling how to add up the time to compute which parent is the primary caregiver, they often exclude activities which “give care” to a child–that is, which promote the child’s wellbeing–and which fathers tend to engage in much more frequently. For example, guidelines for computing caregiving time commonly include that spent shopping for the child–as if shopping counts as “child care” whereas making the money required to do the shopping does not. And they standardly include housecleaning, but not repairs and maintenance on the house, yard and car which benefit the child similarly.

This kind of cheating is not crucial to the issue before us, however. For even if the explication of “primary caregiver” should be limited to direct, hands-on nurturing, the criterion is still sexist. “How could that be?”, one may ask. “Not only does the presumption not explicitly mention either sex, but childcaring activities are something which either gender can perform. If fathers have performed them less often, that has been their own choice, not someone else’s biased treatment of them.” Here again the hypocrisy behind the criterion shows through. For just recall how strongly Canadian feminists objected to fathers getting an equal opportunity for childcare leave paid for by the government. It’s a cozy racket: first prevent men from spending as much time with the children, then punish them for not having spent as much time with the children.

The problem goes far deeper than the specific matter of childcare leave, however. For well over a century, social forces have pressured and conditioned fathers to leave the hands-on childcare to mothers–just as they once pressured and conditioned mothers to stay at home out of paid employment. The “choices” men and women have made in this regard have been very far from free choices, even when explicit rules have not coerced them. Recognizing this in the case of women, feminists have not blamed women for failing to “do their share” on the paid-labor front. Instead they have demanded, and gotten, hundreds of millions of dollars for programs to encourage women into, and guide them through, the careers once held mostly by men. But no such efforts have gone into helping men become more socially free to provide, and more capable in providing, hands-on childcare. We don’t hear demands for government programs to get fathers more involved in primary caregiving–just threats to deprive them of their children if they do not.

This point about “affirmative action” programs (to get women into jobs formerly held just by men) leads to another hypocrisy of the “primary caregiver” doctrine. Among the main targets of these job-programs have been women who have already been out of the paid workforce to raise children. Are these women told that their earlier choice is now cast in stone? On the contrary, former primary caregivers are given special help and encouragement to adopt a new role. In stark contrast, the whole point of the “primary caregiver” doctrine is to tell erstwhile breadwinner fathers in divorce that they are NOT now allowed a new role–not allowed to be more of a hands-on caregiver. The message “You made your choice, and you may not change it with changing circumstances” is to be given only to men. (Recall that the mother is to put the kids in daycare, rather than let them be with their own father, during the time when she is at her new job. Also note that in many marriages, the primary caregiver is the daycare!)

Yet a further point can be made about the fraudulence of the “primary caregiver” doctrine. In almost no marriages does the father spend no time at all with the children; in most, surveys have indicated, his direct interaction-time with them is fairly close to that of the mother–and certainly up to that 30% time-level mentioned earlier. (Hence those lists of “childcare” activities that are loaded against male-typical ones.) But the proponents of the doctrine don’t believe in partial credit; to them it’s all or nothing. If you didn’t make it up to that 50% level, you lose custody. This is what logicians speak of as black-and-white thinking. It is the defining characteristic of extremism: not seeing the world in all its shades of gray, just the two extremes. But once we do take account of matters of degree, then even by the “primary caregiver” proponents’ own basic assumptions, an appreciable degree of shared stewardship follows–in flat contradiction of the “primary caregiver” doctrine as they promote it.

The Fundamental Injustice

Even all this fraudulence on the part of “primary caregiver” proponents, however, is not the most basic problem with the concept; it is discriminatory at its very core. The fundamental problem is the criterion’s assumption that men and women must behave just alike, in the caregiving respect, in order to be treated equally in regard to child custody. To begin to see why this is wrong, let us reflect on a parallel idea, one which I label the “primary breadwinner” presumption.

Under this doctrine, upon divorce or separation, all of the monetary assets and property of the couple would go to the parent who has contributed the most financially during their time together. Think about it. Would the feminist establishment consider this non-discriminatory? Not on your Irene, Murdoch. But this time, they would be right. The reason: marriage is supposed to be an equal partnership. In a traditional marriage, the mother’s staying at home with the children left the father free to pursue financial gain; hence she has indirectly contributed to that gain as well, and by all rights, it also belongs to her. By the very same token, however, the father’s going off to work has left the mother free to care directly for the children; hence he likewise has an equal moral right to the fruits of her labors. The two contributions to the children do not have to be the same in kind in order to be equal in value for the children. (If I were inclined toward irony, I’d call this the “parental pay equity” principle.)

Now we can state more clearly than ever the crass hypocrisy of the feminist establishment in this matter. In divorce and separation, they don’t want the mother to wind up with the fruits of her direct labors and the father to wind up with the fruits of his direct labors. They want the mother to get them both: the children, and the money earned for them by the father. As noted earlier, they want her to “have it all”. But as has now been revealed, “having it all” means having it both ways.

One final point. In this talk, I have focused on gender equality. That is not the most important issue in custody issues, however; the wellbeing and rights of the children are. Though this is a subject for another speech–at least–one important point can be made here. It is that from focusing on the children, the same conclusions follow: children possess a moral right to have both parents as stewards of their wellbeing. The ultimate fraud of the “primary caregiver” doctrine is its violation of that right.

About P. Emeritus

"P. Emeritus" is a senior academic who understands cultural misandry and opposes it through evidence and formal argument.

View All Posts

Support us by becoming a member

AVFM depends on readers like you to help us pay expenses related to operations and activism. If you support our mission, please subscribe today.

Join or donate

Sponsored links

  • HeligKo

    I have so many problems with the modern way of viewing this. First the best interest of the child is not really being considered. If it were, then the courts would order the couple to stay married in most cases, or would send the kids off to some wealthy third party who could provide the best of everything for them. I don’t think this is the solution that most want, but it would not be hard to build a legal case for either. The moral case is almost impossible.

    Legally the dissolution of a marriage is the nullification of a contract between two people, and the resolution of a new contract if there are any ongoing terms that need to be handled like children and shared property that will remain so, etc. Unless a parent is considered unfit for some reason, the children should be spending time with each parent almost equally and each parent should share in their expenses almost equally. If a parent cannot do so, and the parents cannot come to a solution on their own, then the court should use a measure based upon who is an able provider for custody of the children.

    If one parent is granted sole custody based upon one parent not wanting or being able to take responsibility for the child, but they are still a fit parent, then the children have a right to spend time with that parent. Visitation should be negotiated for the sake of the children, and the parent who is not custodial in this case gains no decision power in things that are financial in nature. This includes school, medical, and activities. Of course there is more, but those are the biggies.

    • Aimee McGee

      It would be lovely if this worked in reality.
      My SO is in a presumed 50:50 jurisdiction and has had to fight to retain this for his younger child, his eldest has been manipulated by her mother so as to be alienated from her father, and the courts did nothing to penalise the mother for her actions. She continues to disrupt his relationship with the younger child in any way he can.
      If there are two rational, sane people divorcing it can work, but until there is a great deal more credence and understanding of the impact of psychological abuse given in court, we are stuck with a default misandry that women are victims and men are the perps.

    • Dean Esmay

      Interesting assertion that it would be in the best interests of children for courts to force people to stay married. That assertion gets you reactions of complete shock these days, but it’s frankly not as crazy a notion as people tend to assume.

      Let’s say for example that a marriage has become abusive. Physically or otherwise. What on Earth is wrong with the notion of saying “OK, you two need to be separated for a while?” In fact I’m pretty sure that’s what the now almost completely antiquated notion of “legal separation” was about. You are separating for the purpose of sorting out your problems. Maybe one of you has emotional issues, or substance abuse issuses, or something–these days, that’s supposedly an excuse to “dump him and leave him” rather than, “OK, we need to separate until you get cleaned up and show that you’re changing. We’re still married but we are not living under the same roof anymore until X, Y, and Z changes.”

      In today’s culture that would mostly be a power play by women since as we know it’s women who file most divorces. But in a sane system, there would be no such sex discrimination. Let’s take the example of Lt. Colonel Kirk as a hypothetical (note that I said hypothetical, it’s entirely clear that marriage is over and never coming back and I would counsel nothing different): Let’s say if three or four years before things got at their worst, Joel Kirk was able to file some paperwork with the court saying “My wife has documented substance abuse and physical abuse issues and we need to be separated until she cleans herself up.” And then there could have been an enforced separation, she’d be forced to leave, while she worked on demonstrating to the court and other parties that she had entered psychiatric therapy and addressed her chemical abuse and mood and violent impulse control issues and was committed to change and after actually demonstrating and documenting serious effort, that’s a marriage that could have, at that point, theoretically have been salvaged. Or, Tina would have gone on to just get worse and then, you know, if after a year or two it’s clear she isn’t changing shit, then the court could say “fine, divorce time.”

      Again this could swing either way. A woman with a husband who’s got abuse problems, same way. Or, as is the most common scenario, they’ve BOTH got problems with MUTUAL abuse, again, a forced SEPARATION with both parties receiving visitation with the children, supervised if necessary, until they could get their shit together as a couple, and then have to show after a year or two at least that it just wasn’t going to work, THEN the divorce would be granted.

      The main argument against this that’s actually logical is that it’s too big a burden on the courts. Although that could be addressed several different ways. The non-legitimate argument in my view would “this will allow an abuser to hang on to the abused!” That argument is non-legitimate because again, the separation would be real and the requirement to document real efforts of change would be part of the equation.

      Maybe that’s too idealistic on my part. But even just a cultural shift in attitudes on this matter would help. We accept it when people with children divorce much too easily. I think there really should be more stigma to it (and yes I’m divorced, I accept this would mean some stigma to me), and more people saying, “Well did you try separation first? Did you try classes on how to get along better? If one of you has a drinking problem or whatever did they try to address it during the separation?” etc. etc.

      We’re too accepting of divorce as the solution to people not getting along. We just are. Or so I think. We take an “all or nothing” approach that doesn’t work.

  • Stu

    Women are always the best choice for caring for children…..I just know this is the absolute truth. Never consider a man, and a woman is always the safest and best option….yep…when it comes to caring for children…..the absolute worst, bottom of the barrel woman, is still infinitely superior to the best man in the world. When it comes to child care, anything the best man can do, the worst woman does better. I just know this is true because I feel it my heart.

    Now for today’s news.

    • Aimee McGee

      Please tell me the father is getting custody.
      The old ‘it’s her culture’ excuse…blagh…

  • Railstar

    This does an excellent part of deconstructing the farce of claiming “best interest of the child” when presuming mother-custody. You have done an excellent job of showing the hypocrisy behind that prejudice against fathers and how children are harmed by it.

  • Rog

    Can someone please tell me why refusal of visitation isnt considered child abuse? and why the children arnt immediately removed from the abusers home and placed with the other parent while the abuser serves some jail time?

    • Aimee McGee

      Oh but didn’t you know, the children know their own wishes and are in no way influenced by the custodial parent…

      • Rog

        but hasnt that already been proven thru school policy and laws that dont let teachers (people in power over a child) date students?(too much influence) (not sure if this applies?) oh wait i forgot since its mostly women we ignore that aspect right?

        • Aimee McGee

          You are trying to apply logic…
          My SO saw the transcript of the GAL report for his eldest when she said she didn’t want to see him any more. Her words had so clearly been coached it was ridiculous.

  • namae nanka

    A great feminist cause was the powerlessness of mothers when it came to custody of their children, together with the legal status of women in
    marriage. On the surface it’s hard to believe that social justice could be served by such apparent legal one-sidedness, and once it became anachronistic the laws were changed.

    However, the notion that it was an expression of the subjugation of women unravels completely when you come to realise that the object was to prevent fathers from escaping their responsibility to provide for their children, thereby possibly condemning their off-spring to penury and imposing a burden on the parish. It was by insisting that men be regarded in terms of their family household and not as individuals, that the doctrine of ‘the best interests of the child’ could be

    This is in distinct contrast to the perverse situation we have ended up with today, where ‘the best interests of the child’ has become a mantra that actually screens the self-interest of one individual—the mother. In
    reality, everyone else counts for very little; not least the children themselves. Such perversity is what happens when a false perspective is given to history to further misinform the present, so that instead of identifying
    disadvantage and remedying this, what was in fact a robust balance is set aside in favour of unfairly privileging one party. Out of past social justice
    misread comes social injustice.

    -excerpt from The Woman Racket by Steve Moxon

  • AntZ

    Very fair and balanced.

    Please forgive me for saying this, but almost TOO fair and balanced.

    In my opinion, the time for compromise is gone. I do not see the value in admitting:

    1) That in the past there were (many) egalitarian feminists, or

    2) That today there still exist (a few) egalitarian feminists.

    In my opinion, the MRM should wait for the much vaunted egalitarian feminists to show that they have some measure of influence within their otherwise sexist hate movement, before we acknowledge that they exist at all.

    Until the “egalitarian feminist” shows her face, the narrative must be “every feminist is a bigot, and always has been.”

    This is just my opinion.

    Beautiful article, by the way. Well written, well researched.

    • Paul Elam

      I think you make a great point. I am not sure how much I agree with it, but regardless of who is “right” it is an important point to bring up.

      I know there were feminists who just wanted some notion of equality. I know there are some now.

      I don’t feel compelled to point that out very often, and certainly not with each time I critique feminism.

      But also at times I get concerned that we don’t engage in any form of groupthink that requires adherents to deny that there was some legitimate forms of push for women’s “equality”

      The way I have always handled that is that I have simply quit conflating equalitarianism with feminism. I see them as two different things, and I think there are some equalitarians that choose to call themselves feminist, but only because they are conflating the two terms.

      I think as this movement grows, we will see this hashed out more in the future. But in the end, I think that feminism, as an entity, will have to deal with a negative public perception that it has righteously earned.

      Feminists that are true equalitarians should find another label. The one they first chose has been corrupted beyond redemption.

    • John A

      Antz, I agree with your sentiment, but “egalitarian feminist” is a bridge that a lot of misguided feminists can use to cross over to the egalitarian men’s movement. To move the mainstream we need converts.

    • Dean Esmay

      This is something I quite frankly agonize over, and it’s for two or three different but powerful reasons:

      1) I grew up with deeply abusive misandry. It was an actively anti-feminist household, of the conservative traditionalist variety. I know for a fact many women became/become feminists from escaping that type of background (the early 2nd wavers seem to have been strongly dominated by such women). Having had multiple exceedingly negative and outright abusive experiences with people who fulminate about “stupid feminists,” I always flinch a little when this comes up. I will never tell another MRA not to criticize feminism, but I will give my perspective. Getting literally (yes, literally) slapped around by someone who says things like “fuck feminists” and then punches you in the gut kind of changes your perspective, and the auto-presumption of “anti-feminist equals good cause” looks, well, let’s say questionable. I know not everyone has had that experience but I have, and I know others who have. Anti-feminism in my view will never be enough unless it’s tied to a specific alternative set of goals. People who tell me they want to go back to the way things were in the 1950s are… how do I put this delicately? Oh yeah: FUCKING INSANE.

      2) There always was a strain of feminist who were genuine egalitarians. I frankly think some of them were hoodwinked by their more deranged “sisters” and I think they were rapidly and even viciously sidelined. Christina Hoff Sommers, Camille Paglia, Patricia Pearson, and Cathy Young all come to mind.

      3) I still periodically encounter the genuinely decent person who’s just naive, who calls herself a feminist who genuinely doesn’t have any real misandry. A blue pill person who’s genuinely bought the whole “feminism is about equality” thing, who insta-leaps to NAFALT when confronted with vile feminists. Sometimes, being kind to them works. But frankly I have to admit it: sometimes, being rude to them about it is the only thing that works. “Hey, if you aren’t going to stand up and denounce these crazy bitches, then you’re part of the problem not part of the solution.” I prefer not to get that way, but I’ll go there if I have to, and don’t blame others for being frustrated.

      A friend of mine, Chris, believes there are five distinct species of feminist: Marxian, Nietzschean, just-plain-likes-to-complain, and I forget the other one. He says all the distorted evil twisted versions derive their only legitimacy from the fifth and rarest kind: the woman who’s experienced genuine misogyny and genuinely had major life choices denied to her simply due to her sex. Which is a small subset of women, and a shrinking one, at least in this part of the world.

      One thing I have come to accept is that Paul Elam is correct: for 30 years the men’s movement has tried being nice, and it hasn’t done squat. Getting loud and in people’s faces appears to be the only way to get any attention at all. So fuck it, let’s fuck their shit up.

      But I will periodically say: bashing feminism? Not good enough all by itself. Because the misandrist gender ideologues can, after all, pull the classic marketing trick of changing what they call themselves (“What? I’m not a feminist, I’m a [insert new name describing the same hateful bullshit]!”) And also because, underlying feminism is the same males-are-disposable, privilege-denying female mentality that’s deeply rooted in our culture. And that’s what we’ve really got to get at: eliminating female privilege and male disposability.

  • JFinn

    OT: I recommend you make the sacrifice to read through this revolting, vomit-inducing article:–why-the-new-sex-segregation-is-great-for-women.html

    That way, the anti-misandry comments and up-votes submitted by blue-pillers will be all the more cathartic.

  • Bev

    “Breaking her silence almost a week after she created a national stir, the 28-year-old university educated woman claimed she did not know what the word “behead” meant.

    She insisted her eldest child picked up the poster from the ground and waved it above his head, so she took a photograph of him, not comprehending the sinister message portrayed on the sign.

    “I did not know what beheading was,” she said.

    ” I have not heard that before … I did not think there
    would be bad signs like that.””

    Just what education did she receive at Uni?

    “Minister Pru Goward cleared the mother, who was not previously known to her department, and said her explanation was accepted.”

    She is Minister for Family and Community Services in the NSW Government (which includes child protecion) She has form as a feminist and is a former head of the Sex Discrimination commission.

    • scatmaster

      She is Minister for Family and Community Services in the NSW Government (which includes child protecion) She has form as a feminist and is a former head of the Sex Discrimination commission.

      She been the operative word.

      • Howard Beale

        re: Pru Goward

        A senate committee ordered by Pru Goward, the NSW Minister for Women, recommended that Police be given the power to issue on-the-spot Protection orders.

        Assistant Police Commissioner Mark Murdoch welcomed this dangerous move to a Police State with remarkable gender-stereotyping testimony

        “We would also argue that having the ability to remove the perpetrator from the home gives time for the whole situation to de-escalate, gets the perpetrator out of the place and cools HIS heels at the police station for as long as it takes to make an application for the order, do the paperwork and give it to HIM,” he said. “HE still gets HIS day in court.”

        Now whom do we suppose the police will be arresting?

        And as any father knows there is nothing so permanent as a temporary order when it comes to Family Court proceedings. It just coincidental that 70% of new first time Protection Orders occur after separation.

        So much for due process, the presumption of innocence or protections from perjury. You lose your house, assets, kids and future income on the arbitrary judgement of some high school qualified public servant and any objections are silenced by threat of jail.

        “This is the same woman who allowed female-only gyms, the same woman who once said it’s okay to trick your boyfriend into getting you pregnant, the same woman who thinks Australian politics is rowdy due to the male majority despite knowing that the far more civilized American Congress is also male dominated. Frankly, I’m surprised she isn’t pushing for two weeks without bail for any man accused of DV.”

  • Rper1959

    AntZ, I should point out that this article of “P. Emeritus’s” is now somewhat dated and was given originally I believe as a speech to a fathers group, as is clear from the style.

    Perhaps in those days their were still a few egalitarian feminists who would consider things from both sides, it’s seems now most of those have disowned feminism and written about why they have done so. This includes not only feminism’s failure to acknowledge that male disadvantage and discrimination exists , but their failure to act on this knowledge and champion true egalitarianism.

    “P. Emeritus” has allowed his articles to be published here as examples of formal argument.

    • John A

      I like the term “egalitarian feminist”, sure it’s an oxymoron, but people identify with that label. leaving that category open gives people an exit strategy from feminism open without them having to move too much too quickly. It’s more important to get defectors than to crush the evil ones.

      Also, “sexist feminist” is a tautology, but if feminism means everything, it means nothing. Giving feminism a narrow meaning makes it more powerful. There is an attraction to make something more concentrated so you can destroy it, but diluting and diffusing can be more effective.

    • Rper1959

      Good luck Ben, you deserve the utmost respect for entering the lions den, and standing by your beliefs.

    • Dean Esmay

      Greg, it may that the paper is not just dated, it may be pointing to a cultural difference. We all speak English, and correspond mostly in writing, and I think that makes us overlook cultural differences at times.

      Kirtland’s Warbler is a rare species of bird found only in certain parts of the US and Canada. They are migratory and have on occasion been found wintering in the Bahamas. Outside those areas, you will never see one in the wild.

      Within the United States, the non-venomous, essentially harmless egalitarian feminist does exist. I spot one now and then. It’s an unusual enough event that I’m tempted to get a birdspotting book and start noting date, time, and place when it happens. There was a time when I thought the nonvenomous, benign feminist was the long-term cure to the toxic variety, but my experience increasingly shows that the toxic, bullying, predatory varieties quickly devour the benign ones when they detect them.

  • Ben

    OT: The clothesline project is going on right now on campus. Next week, I am going to make a clothesline project of my own. I have already obtained a permission to do so. I will be hammering T posts into the ground and hanging colorful T-shirts on them that I will have to purchase myself. They will contain messages that will undoubtedly offend many people such as “Be a Real Woman and Don’t Lie About Rape” and “I Make No Apologies For Rape”. Every day some sorority girl has stopped me on the sidewalk this week while flanked by over 1000 T-shirts that say things like “Real Men Don’t Rape” and “No Applies To Husbands Too” and tried to give me a “push card” with information about men’s violence against women. They are using some of the same shirts from last year. I was able to get a campus official to admit that the faculty makes some of the shirts, not real victims. I went and talked to upper level administration today (I won’t say what position he or she is in for confidentiality) and was basically told that if I did not like the event, to go around it. I will definitely be called a loser who can’t get laid, etcetera by thousands of people next week, but I really don’t care anymore. I will also be alone but I really don’t care. I can’t take this harassment anymore.

    Oh, I should point out that this upper level administrator was helpful, friendly, and professional and encouraged me to carry out my activism next week. I had to agree with the idea about walking around it if I didn’t like it. Perhaps everyone else will reciprocate and simply walk around my exhibit if they don’t like it, whereby extending the same courtesy that I intend to extend to my opposition.


    • Tawil

      Standing up to a crowd of control-freaks like that is gutsy. You are a legend, Ben! Protect yourself emotionally from their hate because some of that shit, when it is relentless, can get in and play havoc with your psyche… and remember the experience you will have of being the ‘outsider’ in their charade is the converse of what you have with AVfM – a place where you belong as an insider.

      Who knows, you may see a few people join and support you…. and maybe they could assist somehow.

      If you have a paypal button please post it here, I can make a small donation for materials (maybe $20 US), and others may wish to contribute.

      Most of all, good luck, be strong and my thoughts are with you on the day.

      • Ben

        Thanks a lot, Tawil. I don’t have paypal but I really appreciate it anyway. I am about to get battle tested for sure and, as you say, those words that I will certainly hear may, indeed, play havoc on me. Even I am not sure if I can detach myself emotionally from all of it. But I am going to try my best; I think I can let it roll off me. I will just laugh at them no matter what they say. I can always say absolutely nothing and let my shirts speak for themselves. Maybe I can get a camera guy to videotape it. I think I can come up with about $65 to get about 5 shirts, the T posts, the wire, and the dye.


        • Tawil

          “I think I can let it roll off me. I will just laugh at them no matter what they say. I can always say absolutely nothing and let my shirts speak for themselves.”

          A good self protection strategy. The filming idea (if someone offers to help) would amplify your efforts x 100, as it can be posted with commentary later on the www. Anything on film, even a photo or two, is useful. Interviews with feminists are also revealing- having them reveal in their own words how hateful, smug and bigoted they are.

          Good luck, FTSU!

        • Aimee McGee

          Ben, thinking of you

        • harrywoodape

          Ben, I think you are doing great.

        • harrywoodape

          Hi Ben. I hope you get a video of it.

    • Kimski

      “I will definitely be called a loser who can’t get laid, etcetera by thousands of people next week”

      A true loser is a person who values getting layed above all else, from my point of view. There’s really no big difference between them and an animal driven to breed.
      But they only hold the second place on my list, right after people who self-identify as feminists, without knowing the first thing about what it entails.
      Third place is taken by morons, who can’t let other people decide on different choices from their own, without passing judgement.

      Learn these lines by heart, watch the fishface impressions that follows, and always remember to smile while delivering.

    • Paul Elam

      Give ’em hell and watch your back, Ben.

    • Turbo

      Very gutsy Ben, stay safe brother.

    • Jack Day

      Ben <–
      I'd like to help you out if I can. Can you please contact me at or better yet by Skype at MRA_Jack_Day

      • Ben

        Okay, check your email. Thank you, sir!

    • tallwheel

      Expect to take some serious shit for those “rape apology” T-shirts. I know there will be people on campus who won’t accept that message quietly .

    • andybob

      Lone activism is very tough, Ben. Your activism will inspire many and be remembered for years to come. Full credit to you, my friend.

      I like your slogans. I hope you don’t mind if I suggest a few more.
      -“Men Don’t Rape. Rapists Rape” (swiped this ages ago from Mr JTO – feminists have siezures over this one because its so irrefutable).
      – “False Rape Allegations Destroy Lives” (ditto)
      -“Most Rape Victims are Men – Anyone Care?” (as if)
      -“Drunk Sex is Not Rape – It’s Just Pointless”
      -“The Clothesline Project Harrasses Men” (that’s you)
      -“Stop Rape Hysteria”
      -“Don’t Encourage Lies About Rape”
      -“Jail False Accusers”
      -“Harrassing Men is a Crime”
      -“Women Lie About All Kinds of Things…”

      I would also suggest that if anyone attempts to engage you, film it yourself. Remain calm and personable. Let me give an example:
      Fem: How does the Clothesline Project encourage women to lie about rape?
      You: I never said it did.
      Fem: Then why do you have that slogan?
      You: Because it is wrong to encourage people to lie about rape. Don’t you agree?
      Fem: You’re a rape apologist
      You: Rape apologist? Why should I apologize for something I’ve never done? That doesn’t make sense to me.
      Fem: No, you’re making apologies for men who rape.
      You: (look at your T-shirts) Where have I condoned rape?
      Fem: You’re calling this rape hysteria.
      You: That’s because it is rape hysteria. Waving 1000 T-shirts that say that rape is wrong, in the faces of men, like me, who already know this, is rape hysteria. It is offensive because it implies that every man on this campus is a rapist. It is deeply insulting to decent men like me. It’s also an irresponsible waste of resources.
      Fem: You say that women lie about things..
      You: They do. Are you denying that women lie?
      Fem: Why don’t you say that men lie too?
      You: (point to their T-shirts) Why don’t you say that women rape too? Are you pretending that isn’t true? You’ve never heard of
      Fem: You are a misogynist.
      You: I like women. I just don’t like being accused of being a rapist.
      Fem: You can’t get laid.
      You: That’s it? That’s your response? (aim the camera carefully) Rape is just a joke to you? I think its time for you to step away from me.
      Fem: @#$%
      You: Have a nice day.

      You may want to ask your contact in admin to ensure that security is close at hand – white knights get excited when vaginas are watching. Stay cool-headed – the misandrist bigots can’t help revealing themselves, especially when they feel secure tin their numbers.

      Oh, and you are a champion!

    • Perseus

      Ben, you are all kinds of metal.

      The MRA’s here have expressed some very good advice.

      It will not be easy.

      Every illegitimate derogatory slur and terrorist shaming tactic they try to assault you with only further earns them their rightful designation as savages. Fucking savages. Merely standing among them and being the vehicle by which they voluntarily put their hissing barbarism on display makes you utterly successful. Bask in the glow.

      Godspeed, friend.

      And videotape e v e r y t h i n g.

      That said, Ben, I do not want any physical harm to come to you. It would be wise to ensure campus security is within a stone’s throw and that they are alert of any concerns you may have regarding your safety. This is crucial. White knights are bat-shit insane in their slavery to pussy.

    • Perseus

      One more thing, Ben. Keep a sense of humor about you. You’ve got a great one and let that show through. If we can’t change Rome in a day, at least we can have a little fun doing it. And attacking you will look even stupider.

    • Dean Esmay

      Go Ben!

  • externalangst

    Great article. The notion of women getting it both ways is ubiquitous within feminism. In Oz, a previous federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner (Pru Goward) publicly declared the righteousness of just as the Prof. describes –

    “It’s a cozy racket: first prevent men from spending as much time with the children, then punish them for not having spent as much time with the children.”

    As well as a racket it is ‘double binding’ – a logical contradiction favored by abusive control freaks and long suspected as a cause of mental illness for the victim.

  • John A

    The other fallacy of shared parenting is that the father’s level of involvement is static, but in reality, as the children get older the father takes a more active role. So the mother of a baby will naturally (but not always) spend more time with the child, however, as the child gets older the father will increasingly spend more time with the child. Of course many mothers resist and resent the father’s increasing role as a parent. My experience of divorced friends with teenage boys is that the mother almost invariably sends them back, although I don’t know of one who ever paid child support.

  • John A

    There is also an agenda that believes patriarchy is perpetuated by the father’s upbringing of their children. These people believe that separating fathers from their children will harm the patriarchy. “In the best interests of the children” is used for social engineering – with disastrous consequences. We saw it here in Australia with the “Stolen Generation” of Aboriginal children and the forced adoptions from single mothers. Forced separation of children from parents harms children and is evil, especially if you force the grieving parents into slavery to pay the people who have wronged them.

  • Jay

    Great article, beautifully and logically constructed. And to Ben, best of luck with your activism.

  • johntucker

    I will be posting this as the groups first story.

  • Perseus

    Man busts his ass wrestling food from the earth, brings it home and hands it to mother of his child. Mother does the heavy work of placing the food in the child’s mouth. Mother is ‘primary care giver’.

    What could be more abjectly fucked than this?

    Man busts his ass wrestling shelter from the earth for both the mother of his child and his child. Mother in this situation is ‘primary care giver’. Riiight.

    Along with all of the above, man provides protection, order, guidance, discipline and structure for the mother of his child and his child. Being provided all of this by the Man, mother has the spare time and attention to ‘tend to the child’s emotional needs’. Mother is ‘primary care giver’. WRONG, ASSHOLE.


    As if the father wouldn’t love to do the rewarding aspect of parenting and ‘tend to the child’s emotional needs’ WERE HE NOT OUT BEING THE PRIMARY CAREGIVER FOR THE WHOLE FUCKING FAMILY– MOTHER FUCKER.

    FATHER is and always has been PRIMARY CARE GIVER. Cunt.

    The current “rationale” for giving custody to mothers is the equivalent of giving custody to a fucking nanny. Mother works long hours at her ‘high-powered’ executive job. Nanny directly feeds, clothes, bonds with and looks after child, and tends to his emotional needs. Nanny quits job and is awarded custody of the child, the house, child support and alimony based on the rationale that she is the PRIMARY CARE GIVER. YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE.

    Mothers are nannies, fathers are primary care givers.

  • Marcos Frederico Andreoli

    It was something that always puzzled me.
    To women put a lot of money in “affirmative” actions to make quotas, to pay leave benefits, to teach them how to work, etc.
    To men, give them the heavy hand of justice on his failures, instead of public money.
    The State, as it help women concilate child and work, should put a social worker to help the man with custody of his children in his new task, make public politics to make employers be more ease on men who need leave to attend children matters and stuff like that.

    But it won’t happen under feminist flag.

  • rutrutan

    Great post and great blog!

    I have found feminist power theory untestable. Long reading about this can be found here:

    Please comment if you find it interesting! English is my second language so I hope spelling and grammar errors aren’t too abundant.

  • bcdad666

    The primary caregiver argument only applies when the primary caregiver was the mother. I was the primary caregiver in my family, but it made no difference in B.C. family court in the face of kidnapping, theft, perjury, false accusations, child abuse, etc. I haven’t seen my kids in a year, by court order.

    • Kronk


  • joshbnet

    So what are men to do these days? Refuse to work full time and insist that the woman put in her time at a job as well. Let the consequences unfold. We have to be willing to put the blame of starving the children equally on the mother as well.