Developing the Masculine Identity

[fullyveiled muslimah]

I largely agree with the OP. I feel bad for men who are not expected to do much in the society at all. Baby makers is what they are now. Men are only expected to mke the baby and "take care of it" via child support checks. This is accepted by women and even wanted by them. I wouldn't blame altogehter the feminist movement, because so many other things are involved. Men aren't wanted or expected to be the breadwinners of the families. Nor the protectors of the wives and children. This has lead to a social anarchy. Women assume they can raise a child on their own without input from the fathers, but that couldn't be further fromt he truth. Making money doesn't raise children. A mother can only be a mother, she can never be a father. She can't teach her son all the aspects of manhood because she has never experienced manhood before and she never will.

A long time ago, the seeds were planted that for a woman to be a homemaker was weak, demoralizing, and subservient. To raise her children was menial work that wasn't as important as what the man role was in the family. Women underestimated that position. We are the bearers of children which is unmatched strength right there, something men could never survive through. Then we are the molders of those children. These children will be the adults of tomorrow and women had more hands on with their own children to shape them into productive good people. Now other people are weiding the power of molding the childrens minds while mommy is out working. At this stage in the game alot of women have no choice but to do it themselves. It has created resentment on both sides. Men are quick to be dismissed by women who tell them they aren't good enough and unnecessary. How many women when they break up with or divorce, keep the children away from the father? How long have men had to actually fight for the rights to see their children legally? In Illinois right today a man can be arrested for having his own child, if the mother feels so inclined to call the police on him and charge him for kidnapping. They do this too, it's not just hypothetical. All this culminates to make a man feel like what? We don't even know, and many women couldn't care less what men feel like. They've gotten so absorbed with their own uprising, that men are regarded as obsolete nowadays and that's wrong. Men aren't obsolete. Men are lovely human beings with awesome qualities. His maleness is what is beautiful about him. And a woman's femaleness is what's beautiful about her. Instead of trying to erase differences that will never go anywhere, why don't we try embracing them? The gender roles of aforetime can be good if neither party abuses the rights and power given them.

 

[Hema]

Women say they like a sensitive man, but they rarely respect one.

That is so true. Many women like "bad boys". My hubby-to-be is sensitive but strong and aggressive when he needs to stand up for those he loves. I love him and respect him.

I believe in equality between the sexes not superiority. If some women want to make men feel inferior, then they are just doing what men do when they try to subjugate women.

In Trinidad, girls are also out-performing boys at school. Years ago, most girls were not allowed to go to school because it was just given that they would be housewives and have no need for education. I have always thought that girls mature faster than boys. Perhaps this is why most of them take studying so seriously.

 

[PureX]

If it were just Victor's cousin, I'd agree with you, but it's not. It's most of the feminists I've met. It's most of the feminists who've been on interviewed on television and written books. Are you seriously saying that most feminists misunderstand their own movement? If so, that's a whole other problem. Even so, if most feminists don't understand the movement and push their own man-hating agenda, that has turned the feminist movement into something negative...it is no longer the same as it was in the beginning.

I'm really confused by this post. I know of very few feminists that hate men, or that promote hating men. I don't understand where this idea is coming from.

 

[Ðanisty]

I'm really confused by this post. I know of very few feminists that hate men, or that promote hating men. I don't understand where this idea is coming from.

Obviously from feminists I've met that you haven't. Maybe it's a demographic thing, but then the internet should level that out. I'm not the only one who sees this though...

 

[PureX]

I have met women who hate men, but as far as I can recall their hatred of men was becauise of specific men that they'd encountered. Some of these women were "feminists", and some were not especially so. But I never presumed any particular connection between feminism and women hating men. And although I'm not well-read in feminist literature, I am not aware of all that much man-hating rhetoric. I think there was some of that back in the early days, when the founders of the feminist movement tended to be more aggressive and militant because they were so few in number. But we're talking almost 40 years ago, now.

When I was living in Chicago, I knew a number of women who were passionately and actively feminist, and they didn't hate men, not even the lesbians.

 

[Quagmire]

That's just not true. Female dogs are generally more aggressive than males, especially certain breeds. Female hyenas are much more aggressive than males. Female rats are more aggressive than males. One study found that aggression in monkeys was not related at all to sex.

I don't know about hyenas or rats, and I'd be interested to see that study you cited, but as far as dogs go; if you're talking about male dogs who've been nuetered as opposed to females protecting their young, yes. In all other cases, nope. Sorry but I've been around dogs all my life and an unsnipped male is always wilder, more visious, and harder to control than the females.

I've been around horses a bit too and I can tell you you have to take alot more precautions when you're dealing with the stallions than with the other members of the herd.

Physical aggression among men may be higher than women, but I maintain that women are no less agressive. Their techiniques (because society imposes certain rules upon women physicality) are more subtle and mental.

There's a difference between the protective/defensive aggression that's hardwired into the male pysche, and the proclivity towards being demanding, controling, manipulitive, and domineering that can manifest itself in the behovioral patterns of members of either sex; The former is instinctual, the latter are either learned behaviors or symptoms of some stage of personality disorder (or just simple immaturity).

Again, I maintain you are wrong. I will tell you, I have a twin brother. Me and him are not very different at all. If anything, he is more mellow than I am. We had no TV growing up, we lived in a house with our biological parents, and had an otherwise well-balanced, socially un-persuaded childhood. Again, he is probably more mellow than me. This cannot be attributed to age (after all, we're twins). Man and woman in this case don't fit the stereotype, and I maintain that if everybody had similar upbringings, NOBODY would fit the example put forth by mass media.

Being "mellow" and being aggressive aren't mutually exclusive; a male lion spends most of his time lounging around until something triggers his aggressive instincts.

In any case your example is anecdotal and, since we don't know anything about your parents, what their child rearing philosophys are, or what you mean by "socially un-persuaded", could just as easily be used to support the OPs position.

It's not my point that society is the only factor, either. It's my point that it plays a bigger role than biology, and that the biological differences aren't nearly as extreme as media would have us believe.

I disagree. In my opinion, only phsysiological factors can account for the level of uniformity in gender roles across the cultures, down through all the ages of human history (and long before media was a factor).

I don't think men and women should start pretending their exactly the same, either. If you think I do, then you misunderstand my position. If you don't, then you are creating a straw man.

Actually I was just summing up my stance. Interesting that your mind only came up with two possible explanations for why I said what I said, and both of them had to be about you.

 

[Ðanisty]

I have met women who hate men, but as far as I can recall their hatred of men was becauise of specific men that they'd encountered. Some of these women were "feminists", and some were not especially so. But I never presumed any particular connection between feminism and women hating men. And although I'm not well-read in feminist literature, I am not aware of all that much man-hating rhetoric. I think there was some of that back in the early days, when the founders of the feminist movement tended to be more aggressive and militant because they were so few in number. But we're talking almost 40 years ago, now.

When I was living in Chicago, I knew a number of women who were passionately and actively feminist, and they didn't hate men, not even the lesbians.

Like I said, we obviously haven't met the same feminists. I don't know what else you want me to say.

 

[Hema]

I largely agree with the OP. I feel bad for men who are not expected to do much in the society at all. Baby makers is what they are now. Men are only expected to mke the baby and "take care of it" via child support checks. This is accepted by women and even wanted by them. I wouldn't blame altogehter the feminist movement, because so many other things are involved. Men aren't wanted or expected to be the breadwinners of the families. Nor the protectors of the wives and children. This has lead to a social anarchy. Women assume they can raise a child on their own without input from the fathers, but that couldn't be further fromt he truth. Making money doesn't raise children. A mother can only be a mother, she can never be a father. She can't teach her son all the aspects of manhood because she has never experienced manhood before and she never will.

A long time ago, the seeds were planted that for a woman to be a homemaker was weak, demoralizing, and subservient. To raise her children was menial work that wasn't as important as what the man role was in the family. Women underestimated that position. We are the bearers of children which is unmatched strength right there, something men could never survive through. Then we are the molders of those children. These children will be the adults of tomorrow and women had more hands on with their own children to shape them into productive good people. Now other people are weiding the power of molding the childrens minds while mommy is out working. At this stage in the game alot of women have no choice but to do it themselves. It has created resentment on both sides. Men are quick to be dismissed by women who tell them they aren't good enough and unnecessary. How many women when they break up with or divorce, keep the children away from the father? How long have men had to actually fight for the rights to see their children legally? In Illinois right today a man can be arrested for having his own child, if the mother feels so inclined to call the police on him and charge him for kidnapping. They do this too, it's not just hypothetical. All this culminates to make a man feel like what? We don't even know, and many women couldn't care less what men feel like. They've gotten so absorbed with their own uprising, that men are regarded as obsolete nowadays and that's wrong. Men aren't obsolete. Men are lovely human beings with awesome qualities. His maleness is what is beautiful about him. And a woman's femaleness is what's beautiful about her. Instead of trying to erase differences that will never go anywhere, why don't we try embracing them? The gender roles of aforetime can be good if neither party abuses the rights and power given them.

That post is excellent. All points I agree with. Men are definitely not obsolete. It would shatter my world if my hubby-to-be or my daddy were no longer around. I’m not sure if feminists really hate men – maybe some do; however when I was growing up I considered myself a feminist to some extent. However, I never wanted to be superior to any man – only his equal. You mentioned the importance of women’s role in bearing children. That is so true. However, I always think it’s best for a woman to be employed. In cases where a woman has to get a divorce, how will she support herself and her kids? I know many women who have stayed in abusive relationships because they depend on their man for basic necessities. As a teenager I have always wanted to be independent and I would advise any young woman to be independent. I have never wanted to be a housewife but now that I’m about to be married, I know that my hubby-to-be will always treat me as his equal even if I am a housewife, so that is not an issue for me anymore. I will still be independent but since I work in the family business, I can bring my kids along – when I have any of course – if God blesses me to.

 

[Quagmire]

Let's see, what's expected of men...

Don't beat us.
Don't rape us.
Don't abuse us.
Don't stalk us.
Don't murder us.
Don't hurt us.
Don't berate us.
Don't control us.

Is that so hard to understand?

The problem with statements like this is that any guy who's ****ed up enough to need to be told these things, is probably too far gone to listen.

And the implyed accusation doesn't do much to rally support for your cause from the vast majority of males who don't deserve it.

But jamaesi, your classes I'm sure are taught by people who support the feminist movement. That's not objective.

If it were just Victor's cousin, I'd agree with you, but it's not. It's most of the feminists I've met. It's most of the feminists who've been on interviewed on television and written books. Are you seriously saying that most feminists misunderstand their own movement? If so, that's a whole other problem. Even so, if most feminists don't understand the movement and push their own man-hating agenda, that has turned the feminist movement into something negative...it is no longer the same as it was in the beginning.

Well said, Danisty.

 

[jamaesi]

I recommended two films, which I will talk about in more detail.

The first is Raising Cain. The PBS website includes a lot of information, especially for parents, about raising their boys. I can not find this online but your local library (especially a school/college/university) library should have this. It's also on NetFlix.

Reviews from Amazon.com[/url] about Raising Cain]Amazon.com
Reviving Ophelia, Mary Pipher's groundbreaking book, exposed the toxic environment faced by adolescent girls in our society. Now, from the same publisher, comes Raising Cain: Protecting the Emotional Life of Boys by Dan Kindlon and Michael Thompson, which does the same for adolescent boys. Boys suffer from a too-narrow definition of masculinity, the authors assert as they expose and discuss the relationship between vulnerability and developing sexuality, the "culture of cruelty" boys live in, the "tyranny of toughness," the disadvantages of being a boy in elementary school, how boys' emotional lives are squelched, and what we, as a society, can do about all this without turning "boys into girls." "Our premise is that boys will be better off if boys are better understood--and if they are encouraged to become more emotionally literate," the authors assert. As a tool for change, Kindlon and Thompsom present the well-developed "What Boys Need," seven points that reach far beyond the ordinary psychobabble checklist and slogan list. Kindlon (researcher and psychology professor at Harvard and practicing psychotherapist specializing in boys) and Thompson (child psychologist, workshop leader, and staff psychologist of an all-boys school) have created a chilling portrait of male adolescence in America. Through personal stories and theoretical discussion, this well-needed book plumbs the well of sadness, anger, and fear in America's teenage sons. --Ericka Lutz --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Publishers Weekly
A genuine enthusiasm for their subject shines through the pages of this enormously compelling book, as the authors share insights on boys' emotional development from birth through the college yearsAan increasingly high-profile topic in the wake of disheartening statistics about adolescent suicide and violence. In much the same way that Reviving Ophelia offered new models for raising girls, therapists Kindlon and Thompson argue that boys desperately need a new standard of "emotional literacy," showing how our culture's dominant masculine stereotypes shortchange boys and lead them toward emotional isolation. The authors turn a spotlight on the inner lives of boys, debunking preconceptions about gender, explaining the importance of nurturing communication skills and empathy in boys as well as girls, and steering boys toward a manhood of emotional attachment, not stoicism and solitude. They also challenge the ways in which, in their view, traditional school environments put boys at a disadvantage (why not hold off on reading instruction a year or two? they ask; why not five short recesses a day?). Such issues as drinking, drugs and the "culture of cruelty" among adolescents, in which "anything a boy says or does can and will be used against him," also meet with sensitive treatment. Separate chapters examine the relationships between fathers and sons and mothers and sons, and show how these can be protected and redefined. This thoughtful book is recommended for parents, teachers or anyone with a vested interest in raising happy, healthy, emotionally whole young men. Agent, Gail Ross of Lichtman, Trister, Singer and Ross.
Copyright 1999 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

The second is Tough Guise, which was made by anti-sexist male activist Jackson Katz. Again, I can not find this in its entirety online but here is a clip from YouTube and a study guide that talks about all the key points in the film.

Better Men


Summary

The heartening news is that over the past few decades our culture has opened up in innumerable ways and become more diverse in terms of gender, sexuality, and race. But all around us we see persistent signals that we need to remain vigilant, that basic justice for too many people remains an elusive reality. Any time the culture opens up there is always the risk that it will prompt a closing and a retrenchment of certain threatened interests.

In the final analysis, what�s required is a full-scale transformation in how we imagine, define and model masculinity - a personal and institutional re-visioning of manhood that specifically and forcefully affirms courage as something far more noble than simply possessing physical prowess and power. This means nothing less than holding to a vision of masculinity that is entirely at odds with senseless violence, bullying and posturing, and entirely in keeping with grace, compassion and the guts to stay loyal to what�s right.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Key Points

* The entrenched interests most threatened by seismic shifts in contemporary culture are both political and personal. The radical right-wing militia movement makes clear the continued political desire of some men for a reactionary return to times friendlier to self-styled "real men," especially when such movements are seen through the lens of gender for what they are: nothing less than an extreme wing of the men�s rights movement. On a more personal level, persistently high rates of men�s violence against women and gay-bashing - even as other crimes decrease dramatically - indicate that there are a lot of men unwilling to break with traditional male authority over women, and are more than willing to use violence to uphold it.

* Leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela represent a different kind of man. All three of these men represented peoples who suffered incredible violence and bloodshed at the hands of brutal oppressors; but instead of responding with violence, they responded, at crucial moments, with peace and reconciliation. And it took a lot more guts to do that than the far easier path of violence.

* Boys and men need to know that courage does not simply mean being one of the guys, when being one of the guys means going along with harassing girls or bullying other boys. It means having the guts to support girls and women, and work with them in their striving for justice and equal treatment. It means speaking out against teen dating violence, sexual harassment, and the myriad ways that some boys and men abuse and mistreat girls and women.

* For heterosexual people, male and female, it means having the courage to join gay-straight alliances and in other ways support the aspirations of gay, lesbian and transgendered people to be treated with dignity and respect - and to live free from the threat of violence.

* None of this will be achieved with just individual boys and men being more reflective about their choices. It�s going to have to happen both on a personal and an institutional level. One of the most important things we have to work for is a change in the institutions that create, recycle and feed off of a residually destructive and narrow range of gender stereotypes.

* The effort required is collective. While girls and women are not in any way responsible for men�s violence, they do have an important role to play as well, because the tough guise is attractive to men in part because they see many girls and women validating it. Girls and women have to show that they�re looking for more in men than bad boy posturing, and in particular that they value men who reject the tough guise.

* It�s clear that a lot of boys and men today are searching for new, healthier, self-respecting ways of being men in a rapidly changing world. We need to hear their stories, too, and learn from them. In different ways all of us need to struggle for real cultural and structural changes in America if we want our sons, and their sons, to have a chance of being better men.

By the way, what MEN need to DO for positive change for men and women is something we discussed in my "man-hating liberal agenda brainwashing" class. And something I do in the feminist groups I am a part of. And something I discuss with my feminist friends... Equality and betterment of BOTH sexes is a key part of feminism.

This is a male problem. This is something men need to work on. Obviously women can and should to help (as men need to help with sexism against females)- but this problem IS NOT because of women or feminism. It utterly boggles my mind that men are blaming women for their problems of their making, but people have been doing that since Adam and Eve? (I am SO GLAD my religion doesn't blame women for all the world's problems.)

As for this... "feminists hate men" I've only met a couple women who hate men but they never called themselves feminists nor did they work for feminist ideals- equality between the sexes and the refusal of sexism in their words, actions, etc... If we're going to judge groups by their bad apples no one has room to talk.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Let's face it, long ago men controlled everything. If you were not a white man and a land owner, you could not vote.

This is now and things have changed. Some times white men feel like it is get even time. What was unfair for us to do in the past is happening to us.

There are many double standards now and the hypocrisy is some how deemed justified. To a certain extent I understand this. My question is, when does it stop?

Will we have a totally level playing field someday, or will the scales have to tip back and forth for awhile?

 

[Aqualung]

I don't know about hyenas or rats, and I'd be interested to see that study you cited, but as far as dogs go; if you're talking about male dogs who've been nuetered as opposed to females protecting their young, yes.

No, I'm talking about unneutered dogs and unspayed *****es. Here's something else to consider: For most animals, males only fight for breeding and territory. Females, on the other hand, must fight for their young, for breeding, and for territory. Cheetahs, for example, must maintain their territory alone and raise young alone, since they only see males occaisionally to mate. They must therefore be aggressive toward other cheetahs, toward prey, and toward potential threats to their safety and the safety of their cubs. Male cheetahs on the other hand must only hunt prey and keep territory (but males usually live together, so it's much less work individually). Female lions are the sole (usually) hunters of their pride, and again must defend their young. Female bears must hunt, protect territory, and protect their young. In other words,Ffmale animals must be equally aggressive as the males in terms of territory; when the animals live in packs, as aggressive as males for mating rights, and if they don't live in packs, the males don't generally have to be that aggressive either; and on top of that they must be aggressive enough to care for their young. It's an added layer of aggression that comes simply from being female.

There's a difference between the protective/defensive aggression that's hardwired into the male pysche, and the proclivity towards being demanding, controling, manipulitive, and domineering that can manifest itself in the behovioral patterns of members of either sex;

There is a difference, yes. But the difference is that one is a feeling and one is an action. It's not an instictual difference. One is the instinct - the other is the socially appropriate manner of expressing this instinct.

Being "mellow" and being aggressive aren't mutually exclusive; a male lion spends most of his time lounging around until something triggers his aggressive instincts.

Yet a female lion spends her days actually BEING aggressive.

In any case your example is anecdotal

As is your evidence for dogs and horses. Shall we disregard all anecdotal evidence? I can go either way, but I won't play on uneven ground.

I disagree. In my opinion, only phsysiological factors can account for the level of uniformity in gender roles across the cultures, down through all the ages of human history (and long before media was a factor).

Fair enough. I have a feeling that this section of the debate can be most readily argued in the biological/instinctual discussions we've been having above, so if it suits you we can just argue those points.

Actually I was just summing up my stance. Interesting that your mind only came up with two possible explanations for why I said what I said, and both of them had to be about you.

It has been scientifically proven that I am the center of the universe, so it's only natural that both should be about me. :bow:

 

[jamaesi]

What was unfair for us to do in the past is happening to us.

I was completely unaware that men are currently barred from voting, forced into sickening medical "treatments," and not allowed to own property. I was also quite unaware that it's legal to abuse one's husband now.

Learn something new everyday, eh?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Sexism is sexism. One gender is acceptable to bash the other is not.

 

[darkpenguin]

is this potentially going to have a US/UK culture divide?

I shouldn't think so, things are just as bad here!

 

[darkpenguin]

yeah....just take a look at the soccer fans over there. now those are guys who i don't wanna mess with.

We're not that bad.... honest!

 

[jamaesi]

Sexism is sexism. One gender is acceptable to bash the other is not.

People can act and think whatever the hell they want. What is not acceptable is systematic oppression of any group of people- something that is DEFINITELY not happening today to men.

Also, the whole point behind feminism is equality (socially, politically, and economically) between the sexes and genders and by rejecting sexist oppression in their lives socially, politically, privately, linguistically...

A woman who "bashes men" is someone who I wouldn't say is not a feminist, but had missed the entire point of feminism.




-Jamaesi, feeling like a record player stuck on repeat...

 

[Hema]

Sexism is sexism. One gender is acceptable to bash the other is not.

Also, the whole point behind feminism is equality (socially, politically, and economically) between the sexes and genders and by rejecting sexist oppression in their lives socially, politically, privately, linguistically.

It sounds to me like both of you are on the same wavelength. Perhaps there was just a little misinterpretation along the way; it happens at times.

Men should not be bashed and neither should women be bashed. We are all equals. :yes:

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Let's face it, long ago men controlled everything. If you were not a white man and a land owner, you could not vote.

This is now and things have changed. Some times white men feel like it is get even time. What was unfair for us to do in the past is happening to us.

There are many double standards now and the hypocrisy is some how deemed justified. To a certain extent I understand this. My question is, when does it stop?

Will we have a totally level playing field someday, or will the scales have to tip back and forth for awhile?

I can see your point, Rick. Even though I agree with much of what Jamaesi says, I have to acknowledge that a lot of fathers have been reduced to a child-support paycheck. This is something that women have not had to deal with in the same light as men have. So despite the fact that men don't have to fight for voting rights or CEO positions, they do have to fight to be involved with their children. This is a fight that I fully support.

I'm only speaking from my own experience with how my husband and I try to go about our business, so I hope I'll come across clearly. I really, REALLY look up to my husband. I consider him to be an authority, and I do what I can to respect his authority. (Now, he doesn't exactly have authority "over" me, but it's more like he gets to steer the ship while I say where I want to go. ) But I think the most important thing I try to do is to show him how much I really need him in my life. He continues to recognize that he married a very strong, willful, and intelligent wife (at least I'd like to think so), and that without me he wouldn't be in the position he is in now where life is treating him good.

So, as a wife, I feel that even though I know that I can support myself if I needed to, and that I can do fix-up jobs around the house, and that I can truly be an independent woman.........I want my husband to feel just as strong and necessary. So, I let him take the wheel so he can take care of me. And together, we care for our kids.

See, I don't know, though, if we fit the classic mold of the "traditional" family. He sees me as his equal and that we actually, do, share authority. I don't obey him. He in NO way is the bossy type - a grumbler at times but that's besides the point - no, what he does is listen to what I really really really really really love and want for our home, and he breaks his back to provide that for me. So, in some ways, I'm deciding what we should have (authority), and he decides mostly how to get it (authority).

Both of us are then required to submit our own wills to each other. Is it a perfect picture ALL the time? Hell, no. There have been many times when I've simply taken the risk with our money in investment opportunities, started homeschooling our daughter before the hubbie gave me his full blessing, etc... but that's mostly due to our personality differences (I'm the risk-taker and the maverick while he plays it very safe most of the time, and he tends to think a lot.........a LOT). But we still try to play fair and to act as a team.



Can't say that I know everything. I don't even know if this post was just banter or if it's a relevant thought. LOL

I just want to make sure that the masculine identity is recognized and honored for it's attributes. That's all!




Peace,
Mystic

 

[Reverend Rick]

I can see your point, Rick. Even though I agree with much of what Jamaesi says, I have to acknowledge that a lot of fathers have been reduced to a child-support paycheck. This is something that women have not had to deal with in the same light as men have. So despite the fact that men don't have to fight for voting rights or CEO positions, they do have to fight to be involved with their children.

People hate CEO's almost as much as George W. Bush. I must have been absent the day they handed out those positions.

A Chief Executive Officer of a company holds the position because they are the majority shareholder of a company or they are a rain maker that achieves goals for the shareholders. The latter commands a high salary the same way a professional athlete does, by performance. Gender plays no part in this. Shareholders would vote anyone into the office and pay them any salary if they can achieve the desired results for the shareholders.

The exact opposite is true for who gets custody of the children. A women gets custody period unless she is deemed unfit or gives up her rights.

It is almost as if a child is property.

Many women play both sides to their advantage. Picking up the check at a restaurant is a good example. They let someone else pay or divide the check.