Fathers

Telegraph on stay-at-home mothers (and invisible fathers)

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:

Taxman hits stay-at-home mothers – Telegraph

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.

About Andy Thomas (aka "Andy Man")

Andy is an outspoken advocate for men's human rights and a campaigner against family abuse. He writes about the harm and prejudice that men and boys routinely experience, but which society refuses to acknowledge.

Find me on  Facebook

Main Website
View All Posts
  • http://www.judgybitch.com Janet Bloomfield (aka JudgyBitch)

    Boom! Way to hit the nail on the head, Andy.

    I wrote about this vis-a-vis paid maternity leave policies, which have absolutely no impact on the birth rate.

    http://judgybitch.com/2013/03/25/work-for-the-man-freedom-work-for-your-man-slavery/

    Mat leave is designed so that women can stay at home with their children and still not have to depend on a man.

    The correct way to provide income support to traditional families is to tax the father less (ie: provide a generous deduction to men who have wives at home), which would explicitly acknowledge that women are dependent upon men.

    In order to enshrine that in tax policy, we have to admit that men simply aren’t the exploitive, abusive, domineering monsters they are painted to be. Why, that would make it seem like men are actually generous, dedicated, loyal and committed to their families.

    Well, we can’t have that. Nope.

    The only way to support families is to erase fathers and act like mothers at home magically support themselves.

    Well, we don’t.

    • SJR64

      Thanks for the article Andy!
      @JB,
      ‘The correct way to provide income support to traditional families is to tax the father less (ie: provide a generous deduction to men who have wives at home), which would explicitly acknowledge that women are dependent upon men’.
      Fathers taxed less would certainly be a male gender privilege and not equal taxation…Males or females consciously making the voluntary choice to not create children are fined via taxation regardless that their lifetime environmental footprints (earth’s resources) are reduced.
      Germany’s post-feminist country’s social engineering isn’t working; Eng language links
      http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/study-shows-germany-wasting-billions-on-failed-family-policy-a-881637.html
      http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/broken-career-ladder-german-women-regret-taking-leave-for-children-a-888054.html

    • http://www.mralondon.org Andy Thomas (aka “Andy Man”)

      Thank you for the response.

      Somewhat regretably, perhaps, the traditional family is becoming a rare phenomenom. Certainly feminism is to blame for the demonisation of men that has resulted in fathers being driven out of family life, however, society has also changed massively over the last 200 years or so with the introduction of the railways, industry and female contraception.

      I guess what I’m trying to say is that perhaps the best approach isn’t to stick with the “traditional family” narrative of a stay-at-home mother and a working father, but simply allow people to provide a safe, healthy and stable homes for children, irrespective of their gender. Some positive steps toward this would include taxing working parents less, and getting the state, the judiciory and gender ideologues the fuck out of family life so that people can be free to be who they want to be–which would include the traditional roles of mother and father if that’s what they choose.

    • http://bcdad.blog.com Kalan Chinuck

      I collected paid ‘parental leave’ in Canada through the Unemployment Insurance system after my second child was born. Earnings (by the applicant) prior to applying were a requirement.

  • http://www.imnotamensrightsactivistbut.wordpress.com ImNotMraBut…

    I’m just waiting for Father’s day and another Cameron Kicking for fathers.

    Maybe it would be an idea an open letter to be written to Mr Cameron asking that when he want’s to abuse fathers he choose any day other than Father’s Day (16 June 2013).

    That way he does not get the opportunity to use the one day of the year when father’s have any visibility to further any Institutional Abusive tendencies.

    Damned when you do and Damned when your don’t – and of course Mr Cameron does like using The Telegraph (AKA Torygraph) to announce shifts in Agenda and Gender – so if it’s poor mother’s now (AGAIN), I hate to think how that will be translated into negation of men in just a few months.

  • mstewart

    A tax for working, a tax for not working. The elites must have our lifeblood however they can take it. As men are the engine for all of this and the most likely to fight back, they must be ignored, minimized, and disempowered. But keep the plow on.

  • gateman
  • the Tired Low Social

    just a little bit farther to a massive amount of men deciding to say “fuck it” and not going to work. AT ALL. yes, there are significant downsides to this and it’s generally better to avoid it entirely, but the amount of attitude adjustment that would be the result of it is astounding to think of

  • http://salientsight.com/ergot/ Limeywestlake (Neil Westlake)

    Men are clearly visible when it suits gender ideologues, and likewise, absolutely transparent when it is conducive to their stratagem.

    As a father who had children somewhat late in life, I have been all too visible at times. In the park, in the supermarket, there were times when, while out and about, women have looked at me strangely and placed me under… surveillance; I guess it was because they perceived it as ‘strange’ to see an older man – like myself – with young’uns. Yes, I know, I know, I could easily be a grandfather, but that’s not how they saw it. It never stopped women from actually coming up to me and asking: “Excuse me, but where is this child’s mother?”

    I kid you not.

    I do not remember how many times, exactly, that I commanded this inquiry, but it happened enough for me to reflect on the situation having ‘resurfaced,’ if you will.

    I guess the perceived stereotype of a pedophile as being a ‘man of a certain age’ has percolated through society so far as to alter the general perception of older men with kids.

    On the other hand, men are being seen as so disposable now, that we are literally becoming – through another family lens – invisible. The nanny state is now the father, not a flesh-and-blood man.

    Just the other day I was filling out a form for my son – something to do with his school activities – and guess what I saw? A box for a. Mother b. Guardian c. Grandparent. This is not the first form, either, that he been designed this way.

    I guess I am no longer perceived as a Dad by society – just as a guardian at best, or, at worst, a creepy old fuck who needs to be challenged in public.

    • http://www.mralondon.org Andy Thomas (aka “Andy Man”)

      Neil – that’s a brilliant response and deserves to be an article in it’s own right.

    • http://www.imnotamensrightsactivistbut.wordpress.com ImNotMraBut…

      Actually the man of a certain age is not necessary. I’ve dealt with reports from men as young as 18 and up to 70+.

      I was even dealing with the Police last month on a case of Gross Disability Harassment (Hate Crime) against a man who not only had worked with kids for decades but was fully security cleared and had a proven track record of work with abused kids and rehabilitation. He was being labelled paedophile repeatedly and local children were being encouraged to be the abusers – attack him and his home. Police response to Aggravated Hate Crime – ?????

      The Police actually denied 1) the actual reports of both adults and kids calling him a paedophile in public 2) doing so specifically outside of his house 3) the labelling being linked to physical attacks upon his house. One officer went so far as to indicate that the eggs covering the front of his home had been throw by him. In the past it was women who were accused of being Hysterical and doing things to get attention such as making false police reports. Now men get that Institutional abuse instead. The UK just aint the place it used to be – and the Equality Act 2010 needs throwing out and valid legislation put in place – and when the disabled, ethnically diverse, poufs are saying that you know you have a problem.

      • http://salientsight.com/ergot/ Limeywestlake (Neil Westlake)

        So sad. Fuck. I do not know what to do with all this information. That pill keeps on giving, doesn’t it?

        • http://www.imnotamensrightsactivistbut.wordpress.com ImNotMraBut…

          Neil – each time I come across a pattern or even a constructed social strategy that is designed to abuse, I go to the media. I push it at the local free newspapers to get them on notice – and if you can get three local people affected they do tend to bite. (Advertising Rules) I go after local commercial radio (Advertising Rules again)and get them on team (the BBC tend to play catch up) – and I go after the Politicians, so they can’t ever claim they didn’t know … and they can always be pointed out to media as either someone who replied – or was too lazy and negligent to do a their paid job.

          Then sometimes it all comes together and there is a bit of a stink and public start asking questions – media are biting and Politicians are having to spout and sound off on positions and what they will do.

          I’d also like to see an open letter being written to David Cameron asking his to use father’s day this year (16 June 2013) to talk positively about fathers (Unlike last year) and to stop pandering to female voters with bad information, stereotypes and his presumed boyish charm.

          The Presumption of Boyish Charm is the biggest looser for him as it simply makes him look as if he’s fixated on female admiration and not good sound politics and the National Interest. Hell – even Nadine Dorries has turned on him and seen him for the pandering poodle he is!

          • http://salientsight.com/ergot/ Limeywestlake (Neil Westlake)

            That open letter thing is a great idea. Maybe it is something Mike Buchanan should do. Hell, maybe one of the ‘powdered wigs’ at AVFM can write one to Obama asking the same thing. What do you think? If you think it is a good idea, I can run it by him.

          • http://www.imnotamensrightsactivistbut.wordpress.com ImNotMraBut…

            Well Neil – it would be a good test to see who is a strategic thinker and who is a reactionary knee jerk! P^) For the UK even wonder if Erin Pizzey should be the putative author, cos it would even look like the school mame spanking the wayward pupil who had gotten too big for his boots.

        • Near Earth Object

          Sad, wrong, disrespectful, disgusting, idiotic, over-zealous…

          That “father” doesn’t even appear on the form…&*^%!!

          It would be a great to capture it in an article.

    • justman

      @Neil,

      >>It never stopped women from actually coming up to me and asking: “Excuse me, but where is this child’s mother?”

      WOW. They actually do that?? The accuse you of being a kidnapping pedofile right to your face, in public??

      A proper response might be: “She is in jail for child endangerment, and that is where you are going, too, unless you leave us alone.”

      Can anyone else think of some zingers to use as response?

      • Sasha

        What about: “I am the mother, but I’m so glad my gender reassignment has worked so succesfully.”

  • Krolll

    In the Netherlands we used to have transferable tax allowances for single income couples. Feminists have been lobbying for years on end to abolish these allowances, calling them ‘kitchen sink subsidies’. Once the Christian Democrat Party voted for abolishment, the allowances were either removed (for younger couples) or reduced year by year. Double income families get tax reduction and financial aid for childcare. Many other measurements were taken to hit on single income families, for instance with disabilities allowances and widowers pensions.

    Most worryingly it’s EU policy that demands the Dutch government should do this. Brussels calls this the Reforms Agenda.

    I think there is very little chance Great Britain will ever get transferable tax allowances for single income couples. Not under EU-governance.

  • Teerex

    This is just cultural Marxism hard at work in the institutions of the media and government. However cultural Marxism always contains the seed of it’s own destruction. The truth is it’s deadly pathogen. Men need to take a leadership role in calling out the bullshit and ignore the mainstream media. And loudly recommend that others also do the same. We need to stop being victimized by this agenda, and start loudly ridiculing it.

    • yinyangbalance

      I disagree. Its not Marxist at all to be Feminist. Don’t let them tell you that.

      Its also not Atheist to be Feminist.

      Atheism, Marxism, Liberalism, Civil rights movement or what have you are NOT the same as Feminism. Please do not take part in the disinformation. Feminism is in its own sphere and it tries to piggy back on other movements to gain credibility and to take over those movements and try to take historical credit when in fact Feminism has done NOTHING in history but destroy.

    • justman

      @teerex, yinyangbalance is right. Misandric Feminism (how about THAT for a term) has nothing to do with Marxism.

      By trying to place Misandric Feminism on one side of the political spectrum, you are missing the point by a mile, as well as hurting the cause of the MHRM by excluding progressive men from helping.

      I could just as easily make several arguments that would place MF at the far right of the political spectrum.

      Here is one: Misandric feminism is about creating a female upper-class and a male underclass of workers that do their bidding and their dirtywork.

      Try another one: Crony Feminism is a collusion between the top 1% and the special 51% to enslave the 49%.

      There is a lot of truth to both of the above statements. And they would both place feminism at the far right wing end of the political spectrum. But I do not generally argue along these lines, because it is counterproductive to the cause of the MHRM.

      But did I just invent some new slogans? I think I may have:

      WE ARE THE 49% !!

      WE ARE NOT THE 1%
      WE ARE NOT THE 51%
      WE ARE THE 49%.

      • http://beijaflorbeyondthesunset.wordpress.com Rick Westlake

        Just a silly snark: 101%?

        (In substance, though, you may well be right.)

        • justman

          The sets are not disjoint, some of the 49% and the 51% are also in the 1% :-)

    • napocapo69

      @Teerex
      Cultural Marxism reminds me the Rape Culture, somethning undefined and intangible.

      Beyond sarcasm.

      Marxism is in contrapposition to Capitalism. It is time that we realize that we live in societies that are all partly marxist and partly capitalist. With full Marxism there would not be more Enteprises; with full Capitalism there would be no more Public services.
      Both are Utopian societies.
      In the real world Enterprises produce surplus that feed Public services; part of this services become welfare, part of this surplus become just waste. Excess of public spending becomes toxic; too little public spending leads to huge social issues.

      Feminism does not mirror any of these paradigms.

      It is all about power, and welfare is the easiest way to buy women consensus, because feminism knows that men are better production engines and that Enterprises success is based on pure production/cost ratio maximization.
      That’s the reason why we perceive feminism as a product of Marxism while actually the drive for socialization of surplus is just the traditional vehicle of its agenda. But it cannot work anymore because the public spending has already reached toxic levels.
      Since public sector has been already saturated by women, feminism has to strive for affirming women representation in private sector, to buy consensus and to feed its obesession for power. And in doing it, feminism is trying to exploit the rules of Capitalism, trying to demonstrate that women in the private industry lead to more succesful companies, thus more surplus, supporting, in all effects, a Capitalist stance.
      And the rethoric of feminism that divides human beings in categories, it is actually the apology of classism, based on DNA. Nothing to deal with Marxism.
      Feminism is just about hatred of males. And its ability to survive its own inconsistencies, comes from its everchanging language, that distracts those that try to tackle their agenda on a pure partisan approach.

      Feminism is about the statutory definition of classes on the basis of genetic. It is much closer to racism. Actually it beyond racism

  • yinyangbalance

    I thought I was the only one that actually counted how many times they name men and women in the Media. If you apply this to general news, you’ll notice they barely ever mention the terms for male gender. They only concentrate on females, what females are feeling, what they are victims of, and the implication behind it all is that its ‘Patriarchy’ that is to blame.

    Just FYI, Patriarchy means Moral and Legal authority of Fatherhood. So as a single father myself (of course I don’t exist either), I am personally the target of the Anti-Patriarchal feminist media. For my existence as a father is the cause of female suffering *eye roll*

    Thanks!

  • Carlos

    I would say that the Telegraph article is a very effective and persuasive piece that frames the issue in terms of things that matter to politicians and the public generally.

    Men are, indeed, invisible (or at least unsympathetic) as victims. Since the Telegraph article’s tact was to portray certain tax policies as prejudicial the best way to do that, given the sympathy gap between men and women, was to portray the impact these policies have on the victims that matter (ie the female ones) and not waste time discussing the victims that don’t (males.)

    That said, I very much agree with the premise of this article, namely that the Telegraph article is very illustrative of the reality that men, and their issues, do not matter in public or political discourse, and are all but invisible.

    The other interesting thing to note about the Telegraph article is that it was written by men, even though by feminist logic, as exemplified by patriarchy theory, anything created by, led or controlled by men must be male-centric, inherently privilege men and oppress women.

  • http://www.NewDemocracyWorld.org Dopesauce42

    I agree that the article was screwy. But I wonder if the issue of taxing families because the mother stays at home is not the bigger story here.

    If the article had mentioned fathers a lot, what good would it do for the issue of taxing families because the mother stays at home?

    Sure the article is Fd, but the bigger issue here is the ATTACK on families, not just men. Undermining us men is the method employed to destroy the family, not the end in it of itself.

    • Andy Bob

      With all due respect, I think you have missed the point of Mr Andy Man’s post. A reading of the article, “Taxman hits stay-at-home mums”, makes it clear that the taxman is bad because – and only because – ‘his’ actions are hurting stay-at-home mums.

      Nowhere is there any mention or concern for the men in these families. The article treats them as invisible and irrelevant – and no-one, except MHRAs, even blink. That is disgraceful.

  • http://www.imnotamensrightsactivistbut.wordpress.com ImNotMraBut…

    I’ve had it when I’ve been asked if I can produce “Written Authority” to have a child in my presence. That gem came after I was asked if I was the child’s father – NO and it’s none of your business so please go away – then asked if the child’s mother knew I was with the child – again none of your business and by which authority do you believe you have the right to act in this way, so leave and desist … it was an amusing ramp up.

    Then I was asked to produce “Written Authority”. My response was to point out that under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997, 2 incidents of witness harassment or 3 unwitnessed could result in criminal charges – and she had just done the 3. So she had exactly 60 seconds to apologise, make a full undertaking that she would desist from such harassment, to then get out of my sight – else the police would be called and charges pressed. She seemed to hesitate, but when I pulled out a mobile and started pressing buttons she seemed to get the message and decided upon self preservation over the bullying she had attempted. I’m also happy to use the word Bully and Bullying when responding to such anti-social behaviour from strangers who have absolutely no reason to act. It does have one hell of an affect on passers by seeing a woman called Bully in public and asked to stop bullying behaviour around the child! P^)

    I have intervened in matters of a similar kind and It is interesting to have to point out that a Child not being willing to speak to a strange woman is not a sign of the child being held hostage, under duress or in imminent danger. Oddly, child silence under such circumstances is to be expected where the issue of Stranger Danger has been taught. It’s even funnier to have to point that one out of an irate Busy Body interfering in other people’s lives. It gets even better when they say that they are not a danger – to which the response is, how do we know that, let alone the child. …. and if they really fail to grasp that, I have even asked if they know the name Myra Hindley and are they related to her? So many women find that one offensive, because who in their right mind welcomes having anyone indicate that you are a sexually predatory danger to children … and yet some believe they are empowered to do just that because they have breasts, vagina and an overly developed sense of their own authority across all of society. I do take a childish glee in bursting some bubbles very publicly.

  • http://beijaflorbeyondthesunset.wordpress.com Rick Westlake

    Invisible fathers? Invisible husbands? Oh, yes.

    Even more invisible are the men who aren’t fathers or husbands, who aren’t part of some woman’s or some child’s life, and who know better than to obtrude themselves. I take refuge in that invisibility.

    Easter Sunday, I’ll be taking my Dear Auntie up to visit the family of the woman who was my mother’s last best friend. We’ll be having Easter dinner with them, and I’ll have the privilege of helping Dear Auntie totter about the house, making sure she’s comfortable, keeping her safe, standing near and smiling reassuringly, and just generally being her helping hand and supporting arm and spare legs, then hauling her back to Memory Care and returning her to her regular everyday caretakers. Somewhere in the course of the afternoon, I may have a chance to chat with our hostess; to say that Dear Auntie is getting close to the point at which she won’t be able to visit any more, and to let her know that when that time comes, I, as well, will just fade out of sight.

    As Winston Smith [1984] said, the moment before he and his lover were taken by the Thought Police, “We are the dead.” More properly, in the eyes of the State and the Press and the Public, we are the ones who never existed.

  • Legion

    It demonstrates exactly how FUBAR a “traditional” arrangement is when it comes to child-rearing: Father is absent, breaking his balls to do the best for his kids, Mother is in the kitchen, resenting Father for his independence, his wealth, not seeing the deleterious effect of those sixty-hour weeks needed to support 2+ dependents, thinking the grass greener.

    Father’s a ghost, a tired voice in the study from behind the newspaper, and children grow up to women.