To be honest, one thing that compelled my support of Women’s Liberation in the ’70s was generation-identity. Every generation wants to prove it’s better than the last, so we men and women of that age seized upon society’s vision of women to prove our parents were backward. We invented equality. Of course, very generation also thinks it invented sex. That’s not all there was. Like many, I had a profound commitment to the idea that every human is equally important as the next and equally entitled due dignity and respect. At that time, commerce had become the only thing that made anyone matter, and women were disadvantaged there by customs from a different era. Things had to change. And change they did, rather quickly, I’m proud to say. The problem is, I still hold those values today, so find myself at odds with feminism and allied with the men’s movement instead. Let me explain. Even in the 1970s, the Equal Rights Amendment gave me pause. Despite the appeal of its being “ours” and apparently righting old wrongs, it seemed to tempt more new ones. If rights are only by special mention there are no human ones for all. If you only have rights as part of a group, we have tribes vying for theirs, not a society of infinite color. History has born this out. Today, women have reproductive rights expressly at the expense of the same for men. If a women finds herself with an un-intended pregnancy, she can terminate it on only her word. What if the father, however equally surprised, is happy to have and raise that child? Is he to have no feelings; not see it as equally his? As bad is if he does not feel ready for nor want to be a parent, yet she decides he will. Suddenly, it is equally his, but only in terms of money. How many of these so-called Deadbeat Dads are kids enslaved by someone else’s choice? The women’s movement was never about equality and never pretended to be. The back of the membership card for the National Organization for Women says it all: “Equality for women.” The women’s movement insists upon special attention to girls in school, though boys have always lagged girls. The men’s movement seeks equal treatment. The women’s movement fights to protect sole-custody for mothers; the men’s does not seek the same for fathers but equal parenting. The Violence Against Women Act provides services and protection for women, but there is no violence against men act nor even one for children. I oppose women’s rights. I also oppose father’s rights, gay rights, French rights, or any special rights. The cry of rights today only hides a selfish agenda; one to the detriment of the equality rights were meant to protect. By their nature, human rights must be understood and be for all at once, not over-defined by group or context. I believe in something the media finds boring as they cannot sensationalize it: Equality. The same consideration for all. I believe Blacks should take pride in their heritage, but equally so should White Southerners. I believe in respecting the needs of Jews, but equally those of Arabs. And I believer that women should be honored as both human and women, but equally so should men, not denigrated for it. That does not describe the women’s movement today. So I joined the men’s, and found that half its members are women. But if some time in the future the men’s movement also corrupts, I will oppose it, as well. ©2008 KC Wilson To nourish children and raise them against odds is in any time, any place, more valuable than to fix bolts in cars or design nuclear weapons. - Marilyn French
|
