Feminism and the Immersed Parent

There is no claim in this piece or in any comment I've left anywhere (that I can think of) that women are irrational or somehow incapable of approaching ideas of equality. In fact, that's completely backward and I have no idea why you've misread it so uncharitably: women are rational, feminists embrace a rational philosophy, and they convince others to embrace that philosophy because they appeal to the rationality of other people. The sentence you've picked out "...demands for equality without a foundation of rationality are totally empty.." is not about women's capacities, it's about types of equality. The demand for Equality A, one not based on rationality (like "Everyone should be equal or we'll shoot everyone), is totally empty; contrast with a demand for Equality B, which is based on rationality ("Everyone should be equal because of reasons X,Y,Z combined in an argument."). I say feminism is about rationality, and that equality falls out of that rationality, because feminists are not pursuing just any old version of equality. They are pursuing an utterly rational one.

You've also misunderstood the paragraph about Immersed Parents, but that's at least as much my fault as anyone else's. As I wrote to Stefania above, that paragraph was designed to show that an Immersed Parent has no long list of things they must do in order to count, not that the list doesn't need to get done. That is, parenting isn't about a list, or about any one duty. But the way I ended up writing it out it looks like a laundry list of non-duties, and that's not what it is intended as. The point is that mothers are generally Immersed parents, and fathers can be as well, but shouldn't be intimidated by a fear of failing to complete a checklist all on their own.

http://www.backpackingdad.com

I'm only responding to what you've said here, as I have no idea who you are, or any other arenas in which you may be having this conversation. But what you've said here is troublesome, obtuse, and yeah, heavy handed.

"...demands for equality without a foundation of rationality are totally empty."

I (slightly) disagree. Demanding equality without action is impoverished. Everyone has a chance, every minute of every day, to actively work towards equality in some small way. What you propose, however, is that foundationally women (mothers, feminists?) are irrational, and therefore unable to properly approach the ideas of equality. Rationality matters to you more than equality. At least, that's how I'm reading you. 

I'm not going to ignore you because you're heavy-handed. But your approach does have me questioning your motives. If I take a step back, it looks like a guy stomping in, waving his hands and saying, "Wait wait wait - nice try, ladies, but you're doing it wrong." You offer half-assed ways for people to be "immersed" parents (not cooking and cleaning, not attending school meetings, not home - what, precisely, is this person immersed in? Sounds more like someone dipping their toe into the ocean of parenting possibilities) while simultaneously telling women that the feminist agenda isn't actually about equality, but rationality - and calling it conversation. (The well-established first and second wave feminist agendas are not actually arguable points, seeing as they are based in fact - the fact that women were fighting for equality.)

Contrary to what you may believe, yours is the type of heavy handedness I absolutely cannot ignore.

Knotty Yarn ( http://www.knottyyarn.com )
Surly and Passionate

and I have to say that it is 100% accurate that women perpetuate the problem more than we admit.  Indeed, what happens when we mock men's labor in the domestic sphere is that we effectively undermine our efforts for equality opportunity.  

We slap ourselves in the face each time we make the case that we are the only ones capable of childrearing.  

http://www.thecluelesscrafter.com/

Thanks for writing such an honest post. I hear what the critics are saying, but I think it's an important step in the right direction for everyone. People always focus on how feminism helps women break out of socially constructed roles, but I think of feminism as also being there to help men (and people who don't identify as either men or women or both or whatever) as well. Yes, traditional roles for men brought them most if not all of the power, but it also constrained them in harmful ways. Not being allowed to express one's full range of emotions or pursue things that are considered (ie - derided) feminine means that boys and men can't live full lives, either. And yes, as the critics have pointed out, there is a heavier weight against women, but this dichotomy of "men are this and women are that" hurts everyone.

Mocking the bumbling dad/husband is easy. I second the call to move away from it. Thanks for the thoughtful post.

Suzanne Reisman ( http://www.blogher.com/member/suzanne-reisman ), Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender ( http://blogher.org/topic/feminism-gender )
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com/ )

Thanks again, Shawn.  This is very helpful for me.

I'm going to retreat a little bit from the conversation -- not because your comment isn't worth a reply, because it certainly is; nor because I don't have a worthy reply, because I *think* I do.  But I don't want to monopolize this conversation.   I think we're skirting on the edge of a discussion on semantics (which I say as a completely value-free, judgment-free statement ;), and I don't want this to turn into a conversation where a pair of grad students natter on at each other back and forth while other people watch with dwindling levels of patience.  In other words, I'm going to let other people have a turn. :)

I do have the sense that our points of disagreement turn largely on pov.  Your knowledge, opinions and beliefs of feminism are informed by philosophy, while mine are informed by social justice law.  I don't think that philosophy and social justice law are incompatible, but I do think that their terminology, and even their goals, differ in key places, which is why straightforward conversation might feel difficult at times.

I don't know if you're familiar with the work of Chris Weedon, who is the chair of the Center for Critical and Cultural Theory at the University of Cardiff (http://www.contemporarywriters.com/authors/?p=auth..., but her work might offer some insights on the power dynamics of gender, and give a little context to why, rightly or wrongly, people feel so strongly about men, even feminist men, telling women what to say.  Her work is a little more allied with poststructuralism than I'd like -- I'm not a big fan of Derrida, and I think Lacan was a goofball (I'm more of an Alan Sokal gal myself) --  but I still think it's worth a view.  Even if you ultimately disagree with her, or with other critical feminism theorists, they're worth a read.  (You know, with all the free time that grad school and parenting young children affords you. ;)

Cheers,

Jen

http://www.bakerina.com

It's a good conversation. And I don't feel like we've both lost, because you've walked a very narrow line to be careful not to *just* dismiss arguments because of gender. I left that note at the end to help clarify. I have had pushback that took precisely that avenue and I've just refused to engage it, because there's no value in it. The argument has to be about the argument, and not the person making the argument.

"Now, if your assumption is based on conversation you've had with other feminists, that's terrific.  But again, it's helpful for us to *know* that."

This, I think, shouldn't matter. If any version of feminism that gets tossed up can be reduced by the analysis provided to a search after rationality, in which equality is a benefit, but not the direct objective, then argumentatively (philosophically, not rhetorically) it doesn't matter if I first preface my comments with "a feminist I know thinks X." Because I have claimed to be a feminist. So a feminist I know thinks X. But I'm not even relying on my own authority to bolster the claim; the analysis will speak for itself or it won't, regardless of my credentials. If more authority is needed in order to argumentatively (philosophically, not rhetorically) support the point, even after analysis has reduced alternatives to the version I assert, then that approaches a fallacy. I didn't back my assertion up with an outside authority because I didn't think it needed it. Rhetorically though, I see what you mean; the audience would be more likely to consider my version of feminism correct if I cited someone who maintained the same thing. But rhetoric is non-rational manipulation and I try not to engage in it when I'm making an argument. I want the argument to speak for itself.

(Long Aside: Maybe, and this is a feeling I get after having to write responses that feel repetitive to me, it is just alien for people to read an argument that is written prevailingly as philosophers write now. I'm not usually casual with my phrasiing when I'm in this mode. It makes the most sense to me to write this way. But if someone is used to less deliberately sparing prose it's easy to read things that aren't there, because those things so often are there. And then I get upset because I've thought I've been as minimalist as possible and still baggage is being attached to my words and I have to spend time carefully rejecting the baggage instead of arguing about the point.)

I think the issue I've raised is an important one. And I haven't been shaken from the inevitability of the conclusion, either through arguments against premises or arguments against the logic of the argument. I've seen a lot of arguments against the conclusion, as though it's some spoiled recommendation delivered from psuedo-opppression rather than the conclusion of a valid argument: they usually proceed something like "women shouldn't be told what to say....". And I sit there and think "This isn't fiat. It's not a conclusion based on how I'd prefer the world to be." That is, I didn't start with the conclusion and try to find reasons to support it, scattershot. So I've tended to deal a bit brusquely with those, because they start from the idea that there is no conversation to be had.

I also think the issue about how to raise issues like this is an important one. I'm just not prepared to discuss it well right now. (And when I say I'm not prepared, I literally mean I've done no preparation, not that I'm being huffy, which I know is how people take the phrase "I'm not prepared" sometimes.) I can appreciate that the result of that kind of discussion matters, and matters to a lot of people, and matters to a lot of people who are also invested in the outcome of the discussion I began here. I clearly have a position, since it's based on that position that I was confident to post this at all, but it's far less considered than the one in the actual argument I make. It's like a conviction about the theory of gravity: I behave in all ways as though the theory of gravity were exactly how it seems to be to me at first, inconsidered, blush. I haven't delved it, I haven't read Newton's Principia to really get into the details of it. The assumptions I have about it haven't been contradicted by experience. But if pressed I'd have to say that no, I don't know what the right way to think about gravity is. Similarly here: I've assumed, in an everyday kind of way, that the answer to whether or not a feminist man can examine, critique, criticize, or even finger-wag at feminist women, is 'yes'. But I didn't spend time worrying at the problem first to really settle my convictions about it in order to argue later.

http://www.backpackingdad.com

...although really, I could talk about this all night long.  But then we'd get nothing done tomorrow. :)  So I will only raise two points:

In response to your statement that I've accused you of assuming what the goal of feminism is:  that's not actually what I said.  What I actually said was framed by your earlier comment:

"This post doesn't rely on the history of feminism to make its case. It does rely on what I believe the goal of feminism to be..."

This is an assertion.  No disagreement there.

"...assumes feminists want to attain that goal..."

Now, *this* is an assumption.  And yes, it's rebuttable, and I know you never said it wasn't, but again, when we're talking in a historical context, assumptions can attain (or be burdened with, depending on your point of view) a certain political significance that they don't have in a normative context.

"...and registers a way in which that goal is being undermined by women."

Which is fine -- but it's still the goal you assume that feminists want to attain.  Now, if your assumption is based on conversation you've had with other feminists, that's terrific.  But again, it's helpful for us to *know* that.  Likewise your explanation of rationality.  I'm sorry if this exercise seemed baffling to you, but it made a world of difference in how I understand your framing of the discussion.  Indeed you weren't being veiled, mysterious or technical, but that doesn't mean that "rational: true premises + sound reasoning = valid, true conclusion" is second nature to all of us -- which was why I originally made the point about the dominant culture and "neutral terms."  You can certainly disagree with this -- one of my former classmates at law school thinks that this is noxious culture politicking -- but I'm just restating it to give a little context to my own statements and questions.

As far as wondering what to do when you feel like every word is offending people:  Of course I don't want you to take the post down.  I don't think anyone here wants you to do that.  You keep arguing your points as best as you can, and I keep arguing mine as best as I can, other people argue theirs as best as they can, and what you end up with is consciousness-raising.  This is not a neat process.  It's messy and complicated.  People get offended, people get hurt, people walk away -- but the point is to keep talking.  Look at the first and second waves of feminism.  Sisterhood may be powerful, but that didn't prevent schisms within the movement.  There were New York feminists couching their terms in very tough, almost anti-family terms; there were California feminists who thought the New York feminists were martinets.  There were feminists who thought that bringing men into the movement was critical, and separatist feminists who thought that doing so amounted to cooption.  There were straight feminists who reached out to their lesbian sisters in solidarity, and homophobic feminists who referred to lesbians as the "lavender menace."  Everyone was driven by the goal of equality, but there was plenty of hard talk about the best way to get there, and what that equality should look like.  There's always a lot of scraping and hollering attached to social change.  Even the "quiet" revolutions are noisy at some level. :)

Cheers,

Jen

http://www.bakerina.com

EDIT (since this is already long ;) : With respect, I must gently disagree with your concluding statement:

"But the second this turns into a discussion about whether or not I have
delivered the message appropriately we've both lost, because you've
attacked the messenger, and I've failed to get through."

Discussing the manner in which you've delivered the message is not the same thing as attacking the messenger.  Nor does it mean you've failed to get through.  Believe me, I hear you loud and clear.  And as I said before, I'm not taking offense at your words, nor am I attacking you for them, although it sounds like you feel attacked, and I'm sorry for that.  What I'm doing is disagreeing with you, and trying to explain why, so that you have a context for my statements, and don't feel like I'm just thrashing about at you.  But I don't feel like we've both lost for the effort.  I'm sorry that you do.

Everyone so far has given the appearance of wanting to rely on true premises, and sound reasoning to reach a valid, true conclusion. That's what rational means to me. I don't know that it's been mysterious, veiled, or problematic to understand. I'm not using "rational" as an overtly technical term.

When I say that feminism is rational, and that it's victories have been because of rationality, and that it's goal is rationality, it means this: that it relies for its structure and success on true premises, and sound reasoning, to reach a valid conclusion. It doesn't (or won't successfully) rely on manipulation of parts of the brain or psyche that don't have to do with logical reasoning. It doesn't beg for mercy, and survive on the pity of the rest of the world. And it's goal is for everyone else to see the world that way as well, because the premises it embraces as true, the reasoning it embraces as valid, and the conclusions it reaches as certain are inevitable if the other people in the world are also rational. When I say that a version of feminism that assumes its real goal is equality rather than rationality is impoverished, I mean that there are lots of visions of equality that are terrible and irrational and those are NOT forwarded by feminists. A world in which everyone is enslaved to computer overlords might be perfectly equal with respect to the sexes, but that's not the goal. A world in which equality is enforced through violence is also not the goal. But those are both possibilities if the goal is solely gender equality and not an equality founded on rationality. (Yes, they are philosopher's examples. I'm a philosopher. I'm after clear concepts, and that requires defining the edges and not just the squishy middle of a notion.) The goal therefore cannot be equality, but an equality based on rationality. It's the only internal motivator that will preserve equality.

You accuse me of assuming what the goal of feminism is, and take me to task for assuming. I've done no such thing. I've asserted it. You are allowed to argue against an assertion. It's a premise in an argument. It's okay to attempt to argue against a premise in an argument, and it's especially appropriate if the reasoning of the argument is valid and leads to a conclusion that you worry just can't be true (as it seems many worry about this one); a reasonable worry at that point is that there must be a flaw in the premise. However, complaining that I'm assuming something about feminism is not arguing against the premise that I've asserted. I remain convinced, absent any other arguments, that the goal of feminisim is rationality, and that equality is a consequence of that rationality.

You raise the same complaint against my use of "impoverished." Again, that's a claim. It's the conclusion of the line of reasoning outlined just above here. It is the beginning, not the end, of a conversation that sees lines of reasoning laid out against each other. It is not just a bare insult or something directed to shut people up. And it is definitely not me trying to dictate the terms of the conversation here on BlogHer in a way that is inappropriate to the forum just because I don't pay for the hosting here. I don't like that you will read what I type as though I'm thinking "These women!...." Frankly, I'm trying hard not to read everything you type as loaded with "This man!..." and I'm failing too often for my own comfort, especially since you have been fairly explicit with the belief that there is a problem with a man delivering this argument. I don't know what to do about it.

The premise about feminism-as-rationality combines with other premises about inequality in gender relations between parents to force the valid conclusion that, on pain of contradiction, feminists should cease contributing to the culture of the Buffoon Father. It's okay to argue against any or all of those premises, and I will defend them until I'm convinced they are false. It's also okay to assume the premises are true and to attempt to show that the conclusion still doesn't follow. I will participate in those discussions. I have trouble being shanghai'd into discussions about media or "other causes" of the culture of the Buffoon Father because I've made no claim that women complaining about men is the sole, or even the most significant cause of that culture. Raising other causes looks, to me, like an attempt to argue against a conclusion I've never asserted. Yes, stay on topic: why should I be asked to defend positions I've never maintained?

It's also okay to hear a jarring note in my words. I am a man. Even if I were living on Mars, descended from an eternity of Martians with no history of the patriarchy, if women from Earth came to visit and I spoke as I do now the context would always be centuries of inequality on Earth preparing women to hear in my words a tone of patriarchy, even if there were no such thing on Mars. I don't say that exasperatedly, but sympathetically. But I can only be taken to task for the tone you, and others, seem to react so badly to, so much before I just throw up my hands and wonder how to have a discussion at all. And in the end I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do with the note that my tone is offending people. Should I take the post down? I don't think so. I think even if I'm ostracized forever for being a patriarchical asshat playing at feminist and controlling the conversation, I'll still have done the right thing by raising, and arguing, for the points that I am. I argue rationally in the hopes people will listen and react rationally, and discuss rationally. And I will continue to do that without fear of jumping ahead to a world in which feminism has won. But the second this turns into a discussion about whether or not I have delivered the message appropriately we've both lost, because you've attacked the messenger, and I've failed to get through.

http://www.backpackingdad.com

Shawn, once again I want to start by noting that I appreciate your
willingness to identify as a feminist, and to raise topics that cause
us to think, hard, about our own motivations and assumptions.  But I
cannot agree with your insistence that this discussion be framed in
normative terms.  I know we'll have to agree to disagree on this, and I
know I won't be changing your mind any time soon.  For what it's worth,
here's what I'm seeing:

You say repeatedly that demanding equality without rationality is
empty.  But you never actually define what rationality means to you. 
Instead, you assume that we're all working from the same definition. 
This is what I meant when I said that rationality is only neutral if
you're in the dominant group.  You are assuming that we are all
defining rationality in the same way, and that if we don't use it as a
foundational basis for equality, then you are the only one who has a
true understanding of equality, while the rest of us issue empty
demands.  Now, maybe we *are* all defining rationality the same way.  We don't know, because you haven't defined your own terms, nor have you asked for input on ours.  Instead, you make an assumption that we are all using a common currency of language here -- and *that* is a patriarchal attitude:  an assumption that there's only one way of looking at the world, so there's no point in getting input from anyone else -- like, say, women.

I think that the taproots of our disagreement can be encapsulated in something you said in your first reply to me: 

"This post doesn't rely on the history of feminism to make its case. It
does rely on what I believe the goal of feminism to be, assumes
feminists want to attain that goal, and registers a way in which that
goal is being undermined by women. It is normative, not historical."

This, in a nutshell, is the problem I have with a normative discussion of feminism.  It relies on *your* understanding of the goals of feminism, it makes assumptions that those goals are indeed the ones that feminists want to attain, and it takes women to task for undermining a goal that may not even be theirs to begin with.  I know that you think that a historical understanding of feminism is beside the point, but I argue again that historical context is not only necessary, it's critical.  Feminism is about more than the struggle for equal pay and opportunity.  Women also fought for the right to *speak*, and to *be heard* -- to speak truth to power.  They fought for suffrage, against hideous opposition.  They fought for the right to own property, and even for the right of married women to obtain credit in their own name (which only happened in my lifetime).  They didn't achieve all of this because one day society at large decided to be "rational."  They achieved it by fighting for it.  And again, they weren't just fighting for tangible rights like suffrage or property.  They were also fighting for the right to claim a place in the public discourse without men talking over them.  They were fighting for a right to speak their own truth, a truth that did not necessarily jibe with that of men.  They were fighting for the right to set the terms of the discussion, which, up to that point, had been controlled by men.

This is why, despite your admirable, honorable intention to foster equality, I am hearing such a jarring note in your words.  You have said that you will continue to speak, no matter whose toes you step on.  But without a sense of what the power of speaking means to feminists, and to the movement, your words sound -- I'm sorry -- like that of any other man trying to control women's dialogue.

The thing is, Shawn, I know that at least some context is important to you.  You told Stefania that venting is *not* just venting, that we have to consider the climate in which we are venting, whether it contributes to an unhealthy public dynamic, and that if the public bad outweighs the private good, we should change our behavior for the better of all.  When I ask for a discussion of feminism in its historical context, I am asking you to do the same thing.  I am asking that you consider a history where even progressive men were sure that they knew what was right for women, and how women felt about the issue was moot -- or worse, irrelevant.  I am asking that you consider your points in that context, and that if you can't agree with me, that you at least recognize that I have a valid reason for being a little rankled by your choice of words.

One last observation (at least for now ;) :  I mentioned before that I took issue with your using your own definitions and terms as the standard for the discussion.  Calling someone else's view of feminism "impoverished," and saying that people will not like the world they live in if they end up ignoring you, is not offering an opposing viewpoint.  It's saying that your viewpoint is the *only* viewpoint.  Now, you can certainly dictate the terms of the conversation on your blog.  It's your right as a blogger:  You're paying for the server space, and for your internet service, so if you decide that you don't like the direction that the conversation is taking, you can say so, and act accordingly.  BlogHer, though, is not your blog.  It's a public (or semi-public) space, and you can't steer the discussion in the same way.  I have no doubt that you're just trying to keep us on topic, to consider the points you made.  What I'm hearing, though, sounds like this:  "These women!  I tell them what they want from feminism, I tell them how to get it, but they keep bringing up irrelevant points about history and the media!  Why can't they just talk about this the way *I* want them to? Oh, well, it's their loss if they don't listen to me and never achieve what I tell them they want to achieve."  And that,  to me at least, *is* the legacy of patriarchy.

Okay, I'm going to wind this down, not least because I'm hungry. :)  Be well, Shawn, and thanks as always for the opportunity to discuss this.

Cheers,

Jen

http://www.bakerina.com

But as I've said here and elsewhere, demands for equality without a foundation of rationality are totally empty. If that's what feminism means to you then it's impoverished.

Secondly, yes, many women have incompetent husbands and yes, they are just speaking their truth. I said as much in the piece itself and provided a reason to be suspicious that that is enough to justify allowing the behaviour.

I'm okay with being interpreted as heavy-handed. That has little to do with the argument. Here is a recommendation, a reason, a goal, and a discussion. Everyone can make up their own minds about it. If the end result is that people reading this think "He sounded heavy-handed. I'm going to ignore him," then they aren't going to like the world they end up living in.

http://www.backpackingdad.com

...but for now I'll just focus on these two statements:

"The end result of a feminist approach to the world is a world where
gender equality has just happened, because no one carries with them any
irrational, irrelevant beliefs about gender. It is not as much a demand
for equality as a demand for rationality, and equality is the payoff."

The desired result of feminism IS equality. It IS a DEMAND for equality, and it's dangerous for you to be dismissive of equality as an after effect of a battle for rationality. First and second wave feminists were not fighting for rationality - they were fighting for legitimate rights and legislation that would render them equal in the eyes of the law, a struggle that is still very much a part of the feminist movement, and is still on the forefront of the feminist agenda.

Second, with regards to women writing about their incompetent husbands, you pleaded with them to stop, stating:
"It is an obstacle to the creation of a class of men who collaborate
with you to change social and economic structures that will result in
gender equality and improved work-life balance."

I'm wary of any person that would deny women a voice, even if that voice is negative, whiny or perpetuating an idea that is no longer the predominant truth in the majority of American households. Many fathers and husbands are capable, competent and demonstrative of these traits on a daily basis. But you know what? A shitload of women DO have partners that are incompetent, incapable, and detached. Why deny them the opportunity to talk about that? If someone is writing about this sort of thing on their blog, perhaps they are just speaking their truth. In advertising, however, I just find it to be pandering and obtuse. Sarah Haskins does a beautiful job of poking at this very subject in one of her Target: Women pieces for Current TV ( http://current.com/items/90569059_sarah-haskins-in... ).

I appreciate your point of view, I just think you come across as a little heavy handed. It sounds more like you're telling women what to do, rather than asking for input and discourse on the topic.

Knotty Yarn ( http://www.knottyyarn.com )
Surly and Passionate

So, last night, my three year-old wanted me to help her brush her teeth.  I attempted to refer her to her father, and explained how I had read a great argument concerning misandry, normative feminism vs. historical feminism, and what should be our rational assault on the anti-immersed-dads media.  She told me that I was a silly-face, and to fork over her Dora toothbrush.

When it comes to nuts-and-bolts co-parenting, I think we are often seriously deterred by the massive amount of communication required.  Assuming that both parties are ready and willing, constant input, explanation, and re-adjustment is required, and, in most families, that is exhausting.  Give-and-take on this scale provides much opportunity for hurt feelings and conflict.  You are right; if another adult is truly involved in the moment-to-moment stuff, it will “change the way the family is organized,” from top to bottom. For me at least, dealing with negotiating that change and the potential fallout ON TOP of everything else is a daunting prospect.  

Don’t get me wrong, I think that in the end, it would be better for everybody if there were two immersed parents, but in reality, it is easier in the short view for all parties to skip the fight and relax into the set patterns.  And when I already have SO much on my plate, I will do what is easiest (and already in my control). I will cop to that. 

I do agree with you that we can’t have it both ways.  We can’t wish for our partners to be more involved, and then freak  about all the ways they are doing it wrong.  If we could all learn to talk nicer and be more forgiving (and maybe drop the bruised egos), maybe we would all be better at this.

Also, I maintain that both sexes have the right to be hilariously incompetent!   And for all to laugh at this incompetency! (Why the hell did we have kids, if not to laugh and point?)

Go blog, go! http://moville.blogspot.com

I appreciate the respectful way you've dealt with this. It's easy to have a short fuse, and this issue is tough.

Let me say that I am utterly not surprised by the pushback. I expected to get something exactly like it. Despite that forethought I <em>still</em> had no idea how I'd respond to it. You got a bit of an insolent prepared speech response that had been churning in my head, but that's really not my last word on it. I have no idea what the place of a feminist man is in a discussion about feminism itself. So I'm going to make one and see if it works more often than it fails. So far it's about even.

Nope. Slanting badly now as I check in with other social media outlets.

http://www.backpackingdad.com

Backpacking Dad,

Thank you for responding so quickly and so thoughtfully to what I will admit was an awfully big plate to digest.  Since the hour is getting late, and I've been studying for much of the day (I'm a second-year law student), I must apologize and defer a longer discussion for later.  But I did have a couple of things I wanted to address, so's you're not left hanging, response-free, until I can sit down with a clear head again.

First and foremost, I want to assure you that whatever my responses were to your original post, offense was not one of them.  You noted that I'd have to work pretty hard to be offended by your calling feminism "rational," and you're right -- because I wasn't offended by it.  I disagreed with it, and I still do.  There is a debate churning through legal academia about the supposed neutrality of the law, i.e.  Is the law really neutral, colorblind, gender-free?  Or does the law reflect the reality of the people who wrote it, who, until the 20th century, were exclusively white men?  Now, there are people who *do* believe in the utter neutrality of the law, and consider any discussion of what the law means for people of color, or women, or gay people, or aliens, to be culture politicking, which has no place in the law.  It's certainly a valid point of view, if not necessarily one that reflects my point of view.  Again, I know you weren't being dismissive when you called feminism "rational;" in fact, you were attaching an admirable trait to an admirable movement.  I just disagree that feminism is more about rationality than about equality.  But that's not the same thing as being offended by your terminology, or your thesis.

I understand that your discussion of feminism is normative, and not historical.  Again, I think this is a point on which we just disagree.  I don't think that a discussion of feminism should be ahistorical, any more than a discussion of race should be.  As for my "furious" gesturing about your supposedly disrespecting the memories of those who have gone before, I will allow that it probably looked on your end like I was making a cheap shot at your expense.  I promise that that was not my intention.  My dispute was with your idea that one day we will all reach true equality because the alternative is irrational.   History doesn't work that way -- and again, I just don't think that these are topics that lend themselves to ahistorical discussion.  You disagree, and thus we have a conversation.

As far as your comments to Grace's comments:  Again, I think this is an outgrowth of our own points of view.  Your pov is that media analysis is tangential to the real issue of how feminists need to react when they appear to be undermining their own goals.  My pov is that the reason people tend to treat dads like dunderheads, unless they're really good at childrearing/domestic stuff, in which case they're treated like heroes, is due in part to the low expectations that the media fosters in us.  You say that women need to address this in order to stop being their own worst enemies.  I say that women carry so much of the burden in trying to address the sexism and misogyny that still pervades society that it's a bit waspish to tell us that we need to address this, too, if we want real feminism.  (I think this was Grace's point, too, but I won't speak for her.)  But again, both of our positions come from a fundamentally different pov, and I think our disagreement stems from the strength of those pov's, rather than from being offended.

Of course, even as I write this, I can tell that you were not delighted by my last paragraph.  Let me state this unequivocally:  I am not telling you that you can't be a feminist because you're a man.  I am not telling you that you can't participate in the dialogue because you're a man.  I'm not dismissing you with a pat on the head and a directive to stifle yourself because you're a man.  I *am* telling you that, like it or not, you are a member of a historically dominant group, telling members of a historically subordinated group what they must do to achieve their goals, which just happen to be on your terms.  I realize that these words are strong stuff, but they are not an indictment of you personally, Backpacking Dad.  I love that you feel strongly enough about this to engage in dialogue with us.  But I stand by my original comments about lecturing and finger-wagging.  Since I know the gender issue cuts pretty close to home for both of us, please try thinking of this in terms of race, or of sexual orientation.  I may be a little tired of the "white people can't dance" meme the thousandth time I hear it, but I'm not about to say "hey, if black people want to be taken seriously, they have to stop making the 'white people can't dance' joke, because it prevents us from achieving true racial equality -- and no, I'm not going to address the history of what black people have lived through for the past 250 years."  Bluntly put, I am a member of the dominant culture, and while I have a right to an opinion, I do not have the right to tell black people what they need to do to have white folks remain sympathetic to their cause.  Likewise, I am studying LGBT civil rights this semester, and am meeting a lot of activists.  I do not want to think about what they would say if I told them what they *must* do to do right by the commitment that straight people have made to their cause.  I think it would involve a front door slamming, among other gestures. 

Again, I'm glad you care enough about this to talk about it, and even to defend your point of view with vigor.  But as I stand by my other points, I stand by this one.  You do have the right to contribute anything you want to to this dialogue, and to frame it in the manner you choose.  But do not be surprised when, in the course of exercising that right, and of framing it in normative, ahistorical terms, you meet women who are nonplussed by your tone, your advice and your framing of the issue, and they decide to push back.  That's all that's happening here.  No offense, no fury.  Just disagreement, strongly worded and conveyed, but still conveyed in a spirit of community.

http://www.bakerina.com

It seems like I decided to pick on the easiest oppponent here, and one who is a victim in many ways to boot, so it is completely understandable to want to say "Hey, there are bigger things to worry about here." But it's still a problem that I felt needed addressing, so that's the post I wrote. It is unequivocably true that the media representations are a problem.

http://www.backpackingdad.com

I disagree that "rationality" is only neutral if you are in the dominant group. Rationality is how feminism has been successful, and how it will succeed, because there are no non-rational grounds that will bear the weight of equality without resorting to the kind of force that breeds inequality. You have to do a lot of work to be offended that I called feminism "rational".

You have to do less work to be offended that I addressed my audience as "ladies", but honestly, I was hasty and I also lack the vocabulary to pick out a term to address an audience of women that hasn't, at some point, been abused by someone in order to denigrate, suppress, or dismiss them. Its purpose was to clearly identify that I was directing this toward women and not passive-aggressively writing a piece about egalitarianism and back-handedly digging at mothers who write disrespectfully about their husbands.

This post doesn't rely on the history of feminism to make its case. It does rely on what I believe the goal of feminism to be, assumes feminists want to attain that goal, and registers a way in which that goal is being undermined by women. It is normative, not historical. You disagree with me that the goal of feminism is rationality. We can talk about that, although you gesture furiously that I've disrespected the memories of those who have gone before by calling feminism merely rational. I'm not feeling guilty.

I'm sorry you were irked by what you take as my dismissal of Grace's comment. I agree with her. I said as much. The point of the post wasn't to describe in detail every contributor to the problem, but to identify one and what can be done about it. That is why a discussion of the role of media is tangential. Not because it's tangential to feminism, but because it's tangential to a discussion of how feminists ought to react when it appears they are undermining their own goals. I don't consider the example of how a parallel discussion could get derailed facile at all. This post has very few, easily identifiable claims, and those should be what's at issue.

The thrust of your complaint, though, treads some truly dirty water and I've had a difficult time figuring out how to reply as gently as you did. I am no less a feminist, have no less a right to lecture, finger-waggingly or otherwise, because I am a man. I won't accept a condescending pat on the head for being a good boy with good intentions, but who cannot participate in, or shape the conversation about equality. I am the change I wish to see in the world. I will always, always, interject and correct when it is required. Even if it means stepping on the toes of those who think I've no business doing so because of my gender. I'm not just disingenuously pleading gender-blindness here, either. I'm not trying to get away with anything. I think that for feminism to succeed the issue of how fathers are treated by women needs to change, and I don't just think that men or media need to do the changing. It may not be the most important thing on the long list of things to be achieved before parity, but it's one that I care about, that I know about, and that I can do something about here and now. No one has to earn the right to address inequality.

 http://www.backpackingdad.com

Like the other posters here, I appreciate the spirit in which you wrote this essay, and I’m always glad to see anyone, particularly a husband and father, self-identify as a feminist. (I always wince when I hear “Well, I believe in [x], but I’m no feminist!”) That said, I will suggest, gently, that while your intention may have been to talk to us as one feminist to another – or many others – your execution bears the hallmarks of the same old patriarchy against which feminists have been pushing for centuries.

I realize that identity politics are a controversial topic of discussion. The 2008 election brought an awful lot of talk about how we’re living in a post-racial, post-feminist America, and with each successive victory for same-sex marriage, we’re moving toward a post-heterosexualist America, too. While I won’t deny that in many respects women, people of color and gay people are living much better than they were 50 years ago, we are not in an age of perfect equality. We can, and do, work toward it, but we will never achieve it if we insist that all we’re doing is moving to a place of “rationality.” The “default” culture in the U.S. is white, male and heterosexual. A supposedly neutral term like “rationality” is only neutral if you’re a member of the dominant culture.

Now, before I go much further, I want to state this much: you’re right when you say that misandry and misogyny are both states we as a society need to reject. I’m not saying that women should have the right to complain that their husbands never do anything, only to mock them when they try. I am, saying though, that misogyny and misandry are not two sides of the same coin. Yes, they are both unacceptable, but only one was used to subordinate one gender, politically, economically and socially. Misandry is a terrible thing, but it was not used to keep men isolated and dependent. This is the context in which feminism was born, and to say that feminism “is not as much a demand for equality as a demand for rationality, and equality is the payoff” does a terrible disservice to the work of pioneering feminists, who had much more at stake than the hurt feelings of their spouses. You describe feminism as a “to-philosophy rather than a from-philosophy.” I would suggest that feminism is both: it aims toward parity and equality while emerging from a place of gross disparity and inequality. To use a well-burnished phrase, it speaks truth to power.

So no, I don’t think that describing feminism as “a demand for rationality, and equality is the payoff” does the movement any favors, any more than the oft-stated goal of “colorblindness” does for the civil rights of black Americans and other people of color. Colorblindness is the privilege of whiteness, a luxury not shared by people whose daily lives are shaped by color. And saying “I don’t care about sexual orientation” is absolutely a privilege of heterosexuality. To suggest that race, gender or sexual orientation are irrelevant is to deny the dignity of people who had to fight for every gain the dominant culture tried to deny them.

It’s not just historical context that matters, either. Sociological context is huge – and to that end, I’m a little irked by your dismissal of Grace Davis’s exploration of the role the media play in this issue. I disagree vociferously with your assertion that the media aspect is “tangential.” If anything, media awareness is critical in any honest discussion about feminism. It’s not enough to have, or not have, certain attitudes. We have to think about where those attitudes come from. I think your analogy of injecting media into this conversation to injecting “Girls Gone Wild” into a conversation about appropriate workplace language is facile: again, these are not two sides of the same coin. And I also find it a little ironic that a (male) feminist is taking a (female) feminist to task for an observation that *he* deems to be off-topic. Frankly, I would have liked to hear what you had to say about it.

Your writing, and your description of family life, shows that you are an enlightened guy, and I’m glad that you’re on our side. Feminists need all the open-minded men in our ranks that we can find. That enlightenment, though, does not give you license to lecture women, finger-waggingly. I’m sure that you didn’t mean to condescend when you said “I want you, ladies, to stop writing about how hilariously incompetent your husband was that day when you left him with the kids,” but when I read it, I could instantly place it on a continuum of patronizing, finger-wagging comments directed at “us ladies” even within my lifetime, which, considering the age of the feminist movement, is not all that long. We do need to work together, and to consider the roles we play and the attitudes we hold, and how they contribute to the social dynamic. But I don’t think that women need lectures from men, even enlightened, feminist men, on what constitutes “real” feminism. Missteps aside, we’ve been pretty good at figuring it out for ourselves.

http://www.bakerina.com

Apologies for that first blank comment.  Apparently my formatting was all fubarred.  Sorry, everyone.

<!--@page
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;}
Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->

<!--@page
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;}
Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->

Like the other posters
here, I appreciate the spirit in which you wrote this essay, and I’m always
glad to see anyone, particularly a husband and father, self-identify as a
feminist.  (I always wince when I hear “Well,
I believe in [x], but I’m no feminist!”) 
That said, I will suggest, gently, that while your intention may have
been to talk to us as one feminist to another – or many others – your execution
bears the hallmarks of the same old patriarchy against which feminists have
been pushing for centuries.

I realize that identity
politics are a controversial topic of discussion.  The 2008 election brought an awful lot of
talk about how we’re living in a post-racial, post-feminist America, and with
each successive victory for same-sex marriage, we’re moving toward a post-heterosexualist
America, too.  While I won’t deny that in
many respects women, people of color and gay people are living much better than
they were 50 years ago, we are not in an age of perfect equality.  We can, and do, work toward it, but we will
never achieve it if we insist that all we’re doing is moving to a place of “rationality.”  The “default” culture in the U.S. is white,
male and heterosexual.  A supposedly
neutral term like “rationality” is only neutral if you’re a member of the
dominant culture.

Now, before I go much
further, I want to state this much:  you’re
right when you say that misandry and misogyny are both states we as a society
need to reject.  I’m not saying that
women should have the right to complain that their husbands never do anything,
only to mock them when they try.  I am,
saying though, that misogyny and misandry are not two sides of the same
coin.  Yes, they are both unacceptable,
but only one was used to subordinate one gender, politically, economically and
socially.  Misandry is a terrible thing,
but it was not used to keep men isolated and dependent.  This is the context in which feminism was
born, and to say that feminism “is not as much a demand for equality as a
demand for rationality, and equality is the payoff” does a terrible disservice
to the work of pioneering feminists, who had much more at stake than the hurt
feelings of their spouses.  You describe
feminism as a “to-philosophy rather than a from-philosophy.”  I would suggest that feminism is both:  it aims toward parity and equality while
emerging from a place of gross disparity and inequality.  To use a well-burnished phrase, it speaks
truth to power.

So no, I don’t think that
describing feminism as “a demand for rationality, and equality is the payoff” does
the movement any favors, any more than the oft-stated goal of “colorblindness”
does for the civil rights of black Americans and other people of color.  Colorblindness is the privilege of whiteness,
a luxury not shared by people whose daily lives are shaped by color.  And saying “I don’t care about sexual
orientation” is absolutely a privilege of heterosexuality.  To suggest that race, gender or sexual
orientation are irrelevant is to deny the dignity of people who had to fight
for every gain the dominant culture tried to deny them.

It’s not just historical
context that matters, either. 
Sociological context is huge – and to that end, I’m a little irked by
your dismissal of Grace Davis’s exploration of the role the media play in this
issue.  I disagree vociferously with your
assertion that the media aspect is “tangential.”  If anything, media awareness is critical in
any honest discussion about feminism.  It’s
not enough to have, or not have, certain attitudes.  We have to think about where those attitudes
come from.  I think your analogy of
injecting media into this conversation to injecting “Girls Gone Wild” into a
conversation about appropriate workplace language is facile:  again, these are not two sides of the same
coin.  And I also find it a little ironic
that a (male) feminist is taking a (female) feminist to task for an observation
that *he* deems to be off-topic. 
Frankly, I would have liked to hear what you had to say about it.

Your writing, and your
description of family life, shows that you are an enlightened guy, and I’m glad
that you’re on our side.  Feminists need
all the open-minded men in our ranks that we can find.  That enlightenment, though, does not give you
license to lecture women, finger-waggingly. 
I’m sure that you didn’t mean to condescend when you said “I want you, ladies, to stop writing
about how hilariously incompetent your husband was that day when you left him
with the kids,” but when I read it, I could instantly place it on a continuum
of patronizing, finger-wagging comments directed at “us ladies” even within my
lifetime, which, considering the age of the feminist movement, is not all that
long.  We do need to work together, and
to consider the roles we play and the attitudes we hold, and how they
contribute to the social dynamic.  But I
don’t think that women need lectures from men, even enlightened, feminist men,
on what constitutes “real” feminism.  Missteps
aside, we’ve been pretty good at figuring it out for ourselves.

http://www.bakerina.com

While I was writing it the only point I was hoping to get across was that there are no specific, universal duties you have to take on your shoulders or divide equally in order to be an Immersed Parent. That is, that not one of those things is a necessary condition on being an Immersed Parent. The sufficient conditions I listed at the end aren't very detailed at all: being part of decision making, being able to parent, not being a babysitter. The point is just that there are necessary and sufficient conditions for being an Immersed Parent but that the necessary conditions aren't as onerous as it might seem to the man on the outside looking in, wondering what it takes. It takes a disposition, rather than particular actions.

So yes, there are a lot of things parents need to be able to do, in tandem, for their children to be parented. But no parent needs to be responsible for all, or any particular one, in order to be an immersed parent.

To your point about venting. It is <em>not</em> just venting. Or rather, that you only intend it as venting has nothing to do with whether or not it contributes to the culture that is going to hamper achieving the ends feminists have. I tried very hard in this post not to say: "Women have no good reason for their individual complaints about their husbands." Because I know that's not true. I also know that it's not true that the women doing the complaining are setting out to deliberately create a culture that discourages men from involving themselves domestically.

And while venting privately to a friend has less of an impact on the culture than writing stories about ineptitude I think even private venting is something you should decide to do only after you've weighed it against the goals you might have. It is going to impact, and if the private benefit doesn't outweight the public detriment then I don't know if people should feel okay about that either. Going back to the workplace example, just because the complaints about inept women in the workplace no longer happen in semi-public areas, but might instead have moved to private conversations between men, that doesn't mean that the attitude isn't going to be harmful to the integration of the workplace.

Talking to your husband privately is exactly the right thing to do.

http://www.backpackingdad.com

...because your description of Immersed Parenting almost makes it sound like it lets you off the hook for playing an active role in parenting even though I know that is not what you intended.

I know you a little bit, and I have the sense that you and your wife have an equitable partnership in all things, not just parenting-related stuff. I also know that most of the fathers I know are the same way. But I also know that most of the women I know--despite being partnered with "Immersed" men"-- are the administrators of the household as well being a parent.

Immersed parenting conjurs up images of parents floating around in a parenting pool of good intentions. "Hey look at us! We're immersed in our parenting! Splish splash!"  Meanwhile the other parent is on the deck adjusting goggles and applying sunscreen. Get the fuck out of the pool and help with the suncreen and goggles.

Despite your best intentions, you don't get to be called an immersed parent and yet never have to know:

-your children's school schedules

-who their teachers are and what room they are in

-what days of the week they have afterschool activities

-when their doctor's appointments are and if they need shots

-what supplies they need for school

-when the birthday parties are and if gifts need to be procured

-which of your own children likes jelly and which one doesn't

-what school forms need to be turned in and when

and on and on. How can you be Immersed if you never have to keep in your consciousness at least some of the things you insist an Immersed Parent doesn't have to know?

Why is it that one parent,
generally the mother (in a household with two parents of the opposite
sex) has to be the retainer and administrator of that information? She
has to be the one with the brain filled to the brim with all the
minutiae of parenting while the father gets to be "immersed," even if and especially if she also works, pays the bills, etc. etc.

I know that fathers care and want to be involved. I consider my husband
an
equal partner. I know he cares deeply about our girls' health,
happiness and well-being, but he still needs to be actively involved in
all aspects of parenting. Or, at the very least, we need to work together to find a way to make it equitable so that one parent doesn't have to bear the brunt of the parenting duties. This is something we work at, and checking-in with each other regularly is an important part of this. Caring about your kids' teeth and actually
brushing them twice a day--even when they (and you) don't feel like
it--is a totally different story.

To your point about what we women need to stop doing: If I vent about my husband forgetting
to put sunscreen on our child before she heads out for a 3 hour soccer
camp in the blazing sun, it is purely that. Venting. Because I am irked, not because I want to belittle his efforts. Venting not to mock, but because it's a health and well-being issue. (PS just an example, this didn't really happen.) I don't want to be
the one to have to always remember the (fill in the blank), and this is something
I hear a lot from the women in my circle. Being "immersed" in that
situation isn't enough.

And, by the way, I generally refrain from ranting about these types of things in public. I might vent to a supportive friend, but that is followed up with an actual conversation with my husband. Cliche, yes, but I believe talking about these things is the way to achieve equity in parenting, not giving a label to a state of inaction.

Being "immersed" doesn't let you off the
hook for having to play an ACTIVE role in parenting, which includes not
only immersion but also execution. I may be missing the mark, but I needed to point out how this concept looks from my side of the parenting fence.

Stefania Pomponi Butler

I blog:
CityMama ( http://citymama.typepad.com )
Kimchi Mamas ( http://kimchimamas.typepad.com )
MOMocrats ( http://momocrats.typepad.com )

Hi Backpacking Dad,

Thanks for your response. I realize that my thoughts could be tangental to this discussion, but my intent in introducing the narrow cultural expectations and negative media portrayals was to lessen the already heavy burden we women bear in this sexist society. We may work towards modifying our language and attitude, but when we are not supported for our efforts by the larger culture, it is frustrating.  We may achieve a point where we have personally worked beyond these influences, but we still have to deal with the sexism in the greater world, particularly in raising our children.

Wishing you well,

Grace Davis

...someone called me a 'feminist' in the streets of London. A stranger hissed this word at me, hurled it, as though I'd recoil and realise the error of my ways. And all for talking to him about UNICEF (I'm fundrasing at the moment).

Truth is, I'm not sure what he meant by it. But I know he didn't like me.

This word is so charged with meaning and so many different meanings. Thank you for your parental dissection of it. It was a very timely discussion for me, indeed.

The media has made no overt claim to have embraced feminist ideals, so a television show about a bumbling father, though a powerful image hampering parental and gender equality, isn't also working at cross-purposes to what the goal of media is. This post is about feminism and parenthood, not media and parenthood. I don't think the media aspect is missing as much as it is tangential. Similarly, a conversation about appropriate language toward women in the workplace would be derailed rather than furthered by remarking that Girls Gone Wild videos are powerful misogynistic images. Yes, it's a problem of a similar flavour, and yes it all has to be changed to effect the overall change feminists are trying to make in the world, but it's off topic.

Further, fathers do insist on being represented in the media in a positive way. But this post also isn't about the ways in which fathers themselves have contributed to the way they are portrayed, or about the way the media is changing its portrayal of them, slowly. It is specific, and it is not a magic bullet for curing parental inequity. It is about one thing that can be changed, now, that will help feminist women achieve the goals they have for themselves.

http://www.backpackingdad.com

While I appreciate the spirit of your post and admire your embrace of feminist ideals, I must emphasize an aspect that is missing from your post -  the cultural and media treatment of the "incompetent dad". Clumsy dads are celebrated by popular media as cute.  Fathers who do what they're actually supposed to do are held up as heroes. There would be no way that a mother could "get away" with any level of inept parenting - there would never be a TV comedy based on such a premise.

I agree that we must take personal responsibility for the implications of our words. I police myself the best I can. But, in our work towards equality, we must also call the popular media on their grave error in perpetrating archaic stereotypes of both men and women. Perhaps, if fathers want to be regarded as equal partners in parenting and household management, they should insist that men be well represented and targeted in advertising and marketing campaigns for cleaning and baby products. It would be refreshing and a sure indicator of a cultural shift to watch commercials of men wieldiing a Swiffer along the kitchen floor and daddies changing a Pampers diaper while cooing to his infant.

Grace Davis - Founder/Blogger, More Women ( http://morewomen.ning.com/ )

Thank you.  Not just for your wise words, but for making me reconsider some of my own.

Julie @ The Mom Slant ( http://themomslant.com )

And I love your new definition.

I can't get over how many Moms undermine their partners when they participate in active parenting or homecare -- women who'd be happy to let their sons play with baby dolls. Total motivation-killer!

X

Supa

freshwidow.blogspot.com
twitter.com/freshwidow

Both my husband and I hate the stereotypes and zero expectations put on men in the role of parenting.  

I also think that if you expect him to or act useless or stupid, then that is what you will get...men will back of and stay quiet.

We need to support and  treat our partners as just that.  Equal in every way.

Look for me at http://crunchycarpets.com or check out the ladies at www.wetcoastwomen.com ( http://www.wetcoastwomen.com )