In the following pages of this article Michael Flood (2008) outlines the plight of the American father to ask a question, ‘what’s wrong with father’s rights.’ In essence by advocating father’s rights, as movements emerging in response to feminism and domestic violence Flood (2008) explains the phenomenon from the perspective of its impact on the movement itself (Flood, 2008).
Precisely, he views this issue as drawing unnecessary attention to men and their role as fathers to the extent of it raising antagonistic sentiments towards feminist activities. Further, he highlights the politics of this issue to show where there are negative influences in creating laws and policies.
Besides, it harbors a bias when domestic violence against men surfaces, since there seems to be no bases of real truth in its expression as a dysfunction in society, but merely speculations of arriving at a psychological defense mechanism for men’s actions towards women and compromising their responsibility of being accountable to their children and wives.
Importantly, in summarizing this whole notion of father’s and men’s rights activities, Flood (2008) reiterates that ‘father’s rights and men rights groups are the anti feminist wing of the men’s movement,’ (Flood, 2008, p 212 & 213).Emphatically, Flood (2008) declares that this association of men operate to insensitize the public towards domestic violence against women and children. Hence, the overall significance of this material when violence against women is becoming a Public Health issue across the globe (Flood, 2008).
The arguments advanced in this article convinces the reader to take an objective view of father’s rights in their own society and determine whether it makes any sense or it is arising out of prejudice for the feminists movement, which really has some pertinent concerns. Flood (2008) is even more credible in his delivery when he begins the discussion by declaring his involvement and lessons he has personally learnt from these interactions.
As such, he emotionally connects with the information from a perspective of reality. This stems from his gender outlook and the ability to make an objective assessment of whether father’s rights movements were designed to exposé injustices towards men as fathers or it was a justification for inappropriate behaviors men displayed to their wives and women, generally.
Flood’s (2008) assumption that all matters perpetuated by anti-feminist organizations being just lies and denials, is supported vividly throughout this article. Primarily, this has been the theme of his arguments as he expounded on the validity of men’s and father’s rights; lies and denials; fathers, violence and family law; supporting fathers and beating and the backlash (Flood, 2008).
Based on this exposition the reader is forced to ask three critical questions. First, to what extent do gender roles influence relationships between men and women in society? Secondly, does the conceptual relationship of husband/ father; mother/wife determine the quality of interaction between a man and woman? Thirdly, if gender is the defining element in relationships between men and women why there is a difference in the way a man treats his wife relative to his sister?
Four terms essential to interpreting this article are father’s rights; men rights; feminism and profeminist. Father’s rights as espoused in this document can be interpreted as obligations, which can be either legislated or non-legislated that make fathers accountable or not accountable to their wives and children.
Men’s rights are legislated or non- legislated privileges men have when interacting with women or society on the basis of their gender. Feminism is the act of advocating equal rights on the basis of gender in every aspect of social life. Profeminist is a declaration supporting feminism.
Works cited
Flood Michael. What’s wrong with fathers’ rights? Rutledge. New York. Print.
