I’ve just, this second, read an article in the Telegraph. The title is “Taxman hits stay-at-home mothers,” the gist of it being that the Coalition is developing policies designed to force mothers back to work by punishing stay-at-home mothers of traditional families.
Here’s the link:
The term stay-at-home mothers is used 10 times in this piece, including the caption of the associated image. That’s TEN if you missed it, a big one-zero.
What about the fathers in these traditional families? Surely they are being hit as well? After all, they are half of the couple in the family unit and the one who’s income is being taxed. How many times are they mentioned in this article?
The word “father” is used not once. The Coalition’s policies on tax and the family are presumed not to affect them and, correspondingly, the article doesn’t even give them a mention. In fact, no mention whatsoever is made to fathers, men* or husbands. And if you, like me, start to contemplate the signicance of this, you will surely find it disturbing. It’s a real fucker, in fact, because it says a lot about our worth as males, and as human beings, in this society today.
Think about it…
Let’s think about the whole narrative of what, to most people, would be an incontroversial article. The focus of the story is the stay-at-home mother. She is not only a mother, but she is a person—a human being with a face. As if to emphasise this, a photograph of the archetypal mother and child is provided for us. In this story, she is also the sole representative of the tradional family itself.
Presumably, in the reader’s mind, just below the level of conscious introspection perhaps, there must also be the recognisation that, somewhere, there must also be a father in this traditional family. It’s just that he’s not in the picture—either literally or figuratively. He must be off to the side somewhere and, subconsciouly, the reader might visualise him as one of those grey faceless shop dummies, over in the corner, just out of shot. It’s as if he were invisible.
Well, actually it’s not as if he were invisible. He *IS* fucking invisible.
This article represents a glaring example of how men are invisible. Looking back at my own life, I know it’s true, and nothing can ever be the same again once that realisation is made.
*I lied actually. The article does, in fact, make use of the word “man” several times, i.e. taxman.
- Does the Independent’s Matthew Champion condone violence against Indian men? You decide! - August 20, 2014
- Love’s Bitter Rebuke – Over Generations - April 17, 2014
- “Bitcoin” and the downfall of feminism? - September 4, 2013
- Erin Pizzey recovering after stroke - August 29, 2013
- Why are men opting out of relationships? - July 22, 2013