Welmer

It strikes me that in our contemporary culture there is a basketful of negative stereotypes about men from which people can pick and choose and subsequently hurl like stones at the hapless scapegoat for family and social ills. There’s the “deadbeat dad,” “abusive husband,” “batterer (or wife-beater),” “couch potato,” “unromantic husband,” “stalker,” “predator” etc. A number of fathers’ rights and men’s activists deplore the negative stereotypes, condemning their use as unfair and hurtful. Sure, these are harsh characterizations, and largely unearned, but it is typical of modern American men, encumbered as they are by a useless, vestigial chivalry, to demand only that others “play fair” (this is, however, a democracy, where chivalry is about as useful as an extra pinky).

Nasty slurs such as deadbeat dads were deliberately crafted as a weapon to persuade society that dubious methods of extortion are legitimate when used to force men – abandoned husbands in many cases – to pay the mothers of their children. Terms such as stalker and batterer served to rush along the suspension of due process in the Violence Against Women Act. In the meanwhile traditional terms of opprubium targeting irresponsible or misbehaving women were dropped as politically incorrect. Hooker and whore are out; “sex-worker” is in. “Slut” is sexist, as is “nag.” Some claim that the overtly sexual nature of terms of abuse concerning women proves that women are disproportionately victims of sexism. Let’s examine a few terms applied to men, such as “jerk,” “perv,” “prick,” and “mother——.” Aren’t those overtly sexual? Words of abuse, whether directed at men or women, are very frequently expressed through sexual imagery.

It is characteristic of power to make attempts to block and erase smears, whether verbal or otherwise, on its shining facade. Ridicule and demeaning words are real threats to political power, and as feminists have so stridently declared, they can also be used to encapsulate and demean the less powerful — in our current case abandoned husbands and dispossessed fathers. Men, all of whom are imperfect and most insecure to some degree or another, are relatively easy targets in this new age of material irrelevance of husbands and fathers. Being called a batterer or deadbeat – regardless of the truth of the accusation – is a real threat to a man these days, when divorce could strike at any time. When such terms are incorporated into laws and the lobbying efforts attached to said laws, they become instruments of state oppression. When words alone from a hostile partner, absent due process, can remove a man from his house and children and potentially result in a violent arrest, they become a form of terrorism directed at a segment of society.

As is common in arguments for slavery, men are portrayed as both threatening and indebted, i.e. they must be controlled physically as well as forced to provide materially for others. Men’s civil rights are entirely ignored, as they are held to be subordinate to their wives’ and children’s welfare. This is a real dilemma for good men, and for thinking men, because there is no doubt that one’s children’s welfare should be of the utmost importance. However, consider the brilliant manner in which feminists frame the debate: what’s good for women is good for children. This allows for a huge latitude in behavior on the part of women due to the very subjective nature of one’s concept of good. Fathers are faced with a far more limited range of options: pay up whether your status as father is respected or not or go to jail.

What is entirely absent from debate is the question of men’s welfare, and whether it has any benefit to society as a whole. Is men’s welfare less or more important than women’s, or is it equal? Does a man’s social and legal status have any influence on his children’s well-being? Perhaps the most relevant question is what implications men’s civil rights have for society in general. Clearly, a society that is generally happy and industrious is a much better place for children than one that is contentious and expends its efforts in strife. Isn’t it likely that when men’s rights are respected equally the greater good is served? Creating an entire class of individuals with fewer civil rights simply for having reproduced may be expedient to some single mothers (although it appears that the neediest frequently derive no benefit whatsoever; rather, it is the more affluent who reap the largest reward), but overall it creates a polluted social atmosphere with negative consequences for child development.

Perhaps the best response, one that worked in the Great Depression – last major crisis of fatherhood – is the social rehabilitation of the American man. Instead of the recent approach of beating and shaming him into submission, which causes him to flee fatherhood and social responsibility, man must be offered a redeeming role — one that fits current social and economic realities. Punitive, coercive laws and social censure are hardly a just reward for the majority of adult, American men, and will likely result in a defensive reaction. The reaction has already begun, but we still do not know what form it will ultimately take. Perhaps we shall catch a glimpse of it during the presidential election, as Joe Biden, a contributor to the unjust and unequal “Violence Against Women Act” – which greatly enhances punitive, coercive and often violent state measures against men – comes under greater scrutiny.