sub32
From: Karl Tietze
Sent: Friday, 19 August 2005 4:20 PM
To: Family Responsibilities
Subject: Striking the balance: Women, men and family
Further submission to project on "Striking the Balance: Women, men, work and family".
Dear Ms Goward,
thank you for responding to my letter of 18/7/2005. While I did not imagine it would be considered a submission and therefore it was not framed that way, I'm happy to let my somewhat unadulterated thoughts stand though it should be understood that they were voiced in the context given therein.
I have been gravely concerned with the "progress" of our society under the influence of feminism for many years. My views are informed by many years of following media stories with particular emphasis on various ABC and SBS programs which deal regularly with social matters (e.g. "Insight", "Life Matters",
etc.) and I have found myself all too often wanting to wring the neck of the presenter for asking only trivial questions or seeking to highlight conflicting views rather than earnestly look for solutions. I don't claim to be a social scientist - indeed I hold the term "Social Science" to be an oxymoron because this field is too subject to the presence of the observer (researcher, etc.) to give objective results. None the less I have come to the view over the years that society is deteriorating and certain aspects - the rise of feminist ideology in particular - have had a large causal effect when it comes to work/life balance. The thoughts below are thus based on my experience or exposure to the various debates. They should be taken as valid in my eyes, irrespective of the views of others with a different - and possibly more 'educated' - perspective.
Thus I have clippings from newspapers wherein various aspects of the implementation of policies based on feminist thought have resulted in legal or financial penalties (or the threat of same) for men or traditional families (e.g. one article showed how the increased benefits to single parent families was virtually wholly paid for by reducing benefits to single income families).
In short, the aim of feminism seems to have been to destroy the traditional family as a social engineering exercise. While I could write a book about my feelings, let me try to encapsulate them in something akin to the wording used in a telegram (if you can remember such).
- Feminism assumed men forced women into certain moulds (Prof.
Phil Harker of Qld. Uni. would call this "attribution of intent"). Even if true, there was no law saying women had to marry and, while there were some discriminatory practices w.r.t.
work, these mostly sought to protect women from some of the "rougher" aspects of "work". Naively, men probably thought all (or most) women wanted children and were happy to be the home makers. Marriage was considered a permanent contract. - The advent of the pill coupled with the work experience of women over the war years meant that some women thought paid work would be more interesting than the traditional role. Fair enough. The question not answered then was "Who's going to raise the children?". Indeed, that was the ethos of the sixties - it was all about the individual and her status and rights. (I don't recall any mention of men's status and little of men's rights, nor children's rights at the time.)
- As far as I can tell, feminism set about developing an ideology and utopian vision based on the notion that once men and women were treated "equally", had "equal" "power" and "status" usually measured by "equal" income potential, they would marry as "equals" and share all of life's benefits and responsibilities "equally". Thus we saw the introduction of the Family Law, and the concept of affirmative action. I place various terms in inverted commas because their meaning is largely determined by the beholder - i.e. there is no objective measurement on which any two people could agree in all circumstances. Indeed, almost by default, the units of measurement used assumed that men and women were essentially interchangeable. The message was strongly put out that equality would be visibly achieved when any trade or profession had equal numbers of men and women in their ranks (though, of course, this was never actually stated in such clear terms).
- At the same time men were demonised. "All men are bastards!"
was heard. Family law in practice was about protecting women from men. Children were simply used as levers to extract more from men of the only thing they could deliver - income. Laws were introduced which, while well intentioned, made all red-blooded men de-facto criminals able to be charged with sexual harassment at the whim of women. When even a married couple went to bed there were now five people, metaphorically, in the bed, the man, the woman, her social worker, her lawyer, and a policeman. (women cannot see this because no-one can see what's behind them). As well as that, sexual liberation along with its dissection in the media of women's sexual expectations now meant there were also three of the sisterhood at the foot of the bed with score cards. There was an implied assumption that women were somehow ethically "Lilly white" - they would not misuse, let alone abuse the laws for their own ends. Women received the family payment (because SOME men drank it all.) with no test to see if it was actually spent on the children.
And, of course, there were "Women's Refuges" whose administrators were required to have "feminist leanings" (I saw the advertisement). There was no recognition that, if all men are bastards, then all women must be bitches. - A select group of women moved into the workforce and "achieved". They complained about glass ceilings and seemed to expect accelerated advancement. They deliberately muscled in on the more desirable traditionally male jobs and made a great song and dance about it. Both Labour and Liberal embraced them - the former because there might be more "workers" for the party, the latter because there were now more workers competing for each job (or so it seems to me). Once these women started paying taxes they became just as prescriptive as their male forebears.
If they were working, so they said, all women should be required to work. If children had to be had, women would have to be compensated for this. Society would have to change its rules to accommodate. (There is a ring of Stalinism here that I can't seem to get out of my head - didn't he rip babies out of their mother's arms as soon as they could be weaned and send the mothers off to the factories?) There seems to have been some fairytale notion that work was other than a four letter word for most people (As some wag said, who on their death bed would say they wished they had spent more time at work?). These women saw (or portrayed) themselves as trail blazers for others to follow forgetting that there is no glory in being second along any such trail - only hard slog. - Surprise, surprise! With both 'partners' working, competition enters the partnership which is not a problem if both can claim to be 'winners' - but really causes friction when one partner isn't. Marriage became less popular and divorce rates soared.
Fewer children were born. (This is not unique to Australia. I recently read an article in a German newspaper which stated that they were some ten million children short. Those ten million would also have become customers, taxpayers, and consumers!).
The government in its then G.S.T. "brochure" didn't even consider a married couple without children a family. Indeed the term is now meaningless along with 'marriage' and I suggest its only function is to take non-working spouses off the government benefit. Remember when there was to be no discrimination on the basis of marital status? What with de-facto status and homosexual claims to marriage, who needs it? Why not scrub it and treat all of us as individuals? The reason, I suggest, is that the powers that be want to be able to give benefits from the public purse to ideological mates. - Now that most women are discovering that work isn't all glitz and glamour and they are running towards burn-out, once again they turn to men as the culprits. Men should do more housework, they suggest. The problem here is that men are in a no-win situation. Who decides what housework is done and by whom? Is it necessary and to what standard? And can men ever get it right given that women still, in many ways, see the home as their domain? Men invented a whole host of labour-saving devices over the decades and bought them for the 'little woman' to make her job easier. They've been factory fodder and cannon fodder - but what thanks have they received? The fact is that men are poor at arguing their side of the 'bargain' while women call on the sisterhood jeer squad. Men therefore cannot win and, as in earlier time, feel themselves driven to drink - and painted as bastards again. They are set up to fail. I have no objection to my wife working at paid employment. What I do object to, however, is being forced to therefore do more work at home. The obvious solution is that either home help is employed or we only go home to sleep. It is one thing to claim a right - another entirely to then turn around and oblige someone else to pay for the consequences unless that was part of the deal at the outset.
- But men and women are not equal. A glance at a couple of papers proved this to me. When a woman throws her baby out a first floor window we all feel sorry for her. She claims P.N.D.
or some other neurosis and we all understand. But when a man takes his children for a drive and gasses them and himself he's a low cur. Men must control their hormonal or mental deficiencies perfectly whereas women can use them to excuse just about anything. I said to a group of women that child care will always be an occupation predominantly done by women. One woman questioned that saying men could do it. My response was simply "Would you entrust the care of your child to a trained 200 pound gorilla?". The basic question is not whether women can do a man's job - they probably can in many cases. The question is whether we would trust men to do women's jobs and, if not, what will men do? One swallow does not make a summer, it is said.
Similarly, even if the odd man can do a traditionally women's job well enough, can all men do it with our trust? - And men are set up to fail before the law. The law is a blunt instrument and is focussed on the presentation of physical evidence. Since men traditionally turn to physical violence, they inherently leave evidence to convict them of being less than saints. Women, on the other hand, use words and other devices. Here there is no evidence and, even if there is some recording, etc., there is no obvious evidence of harm. I don't know how one would compare psychological or emotional damage between men and women but I think it is a crass assumption that they are probably equivalent.
- This brings me to the position of young men today. I have become an avowed anti-feminist, regarding feminists as so self centred as to be un-lovable. If I were young today I would look at the statistics which have been bandied about. 50% divorce rate largely initiated by women. 25% chance that "my" child might not really be my own and I won't be allowed to find out until my possibility of trying again with a more honest woman is gone. If I do "marry" and have a child ascribed to me, I can be bled white financially at the whim of the woman unless I have a lot of evidence which, of course, I should be collecting while I still don't suspect her duplicity. How do you expect me to react? Women would say "Just be a good husband (i.e. doormat).".
There is another option, however. There's a saying "May as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb." I can give up on "society", become a "bum", sow my wild oats, and never pay a cent because I have concluded that I'm going to be stripped of anything I have anyway. Society may frown but, who cares? Soon there won't be a society. - So why did things go so off the rails? I believe no allowance has been made for two things - what is called the market and plain old human selfishness. John Howard's G.S.T.
said no-one would be worse off but all he measured was dollars in some pockets - there was no accounting for movements in the market as a result. Two-income "families" meant housing became unaffordable for single-income families. Statistics have been used selectively or mis-used to suit proponents of a particular view. Social engineers have looked for evidence to support their desired outcomes. Everyone is focussed on their own interests and clique - like looking at the waves on the ocean without being aware of the current beneath. There seem to be no principles any more - only convenience or expedience. Why do we pay working women to get child care without paying stay-at-home women for similar "work"? Why do we still discriminate against married couples for the pension when two homosexuals or lesbians can live together and get two single pensions? We must 'import'
skilled workers - presumably because we (private enterprise) didn't want to pay for their training. We didn't want kids because they might cramp our life style so now we'll have to lift migration to have somebody to look after us in the nursing homes. As my cousin put it, we have become a decadent society - a curse is on us all.
Pundits talk about "encouraging" the single parents, the elderly, and the handicapped into the workforce (with draconian "inducements"?). But the modern workforce requires multiple years of training in very vertically integrated disciplines. And the psychology of getting older workers re-employed by younger bosses is simply a pipe-dream.
I do not expect you to agree with all I say nor is all bad. But there remains a flavour, an atmosphere, an undefinable 'spirit of the times', as it were, in the Australian environment which says to me "Why bother?". I have become disconnected from my fellow man because that fellow man (and woman) no longer, it seems to me, believes in community - only in an economy. It was one in a number of reasons I elected to retire early from the public service having concluded the public don't want such a thing.
You cannot buy a community - but you can sell it down the river!
Nor can an economy define "good" in terms other than profit. It is, I suspect, the outworking of what is called 'secular humanism' - a de facto faith, pedaled by the ABC among others, based on populism without being able to answer the question "Why bother?".
I think I've said enough.
Regards,
Karl Tietze
