I remember as a child hearing women talk, in passing, about the fact that it was only mothers who were entitled to collect the family allowance (child benefit) from the post office, and that the money would only be handed over via the mother’s signature, and in her presence .

This was not always the case. Originally, government assistance went to the fathers:

Child tax allowances were usually paid to fathers, because men were more likely to be earning. They were obviously meant for children but, as they just formed part of tax-free allowances, they were not separately paid or identified as money for children, unlike family allowances.7 Not surprisingly, they also cost the Treasury more in lost income tax than the amount spent on family allowances. As a Conservative Chancellor put it much later:

“I am clear…that [reintroducing child tax allowances] would not be an effective way of channelling resources to those who need them. A better way of directing help straight into the pockets of mothers…is child benefit.”8

This reporting of history seems a little off-key. There are two issues:

The first is the fact that “they cost the Treasury more in lost income tax than the amount spent on family allowances”.The child tax allowance system was inefficient, but what the document does not explain is why the new family allowance system required the money to be paid directly mothers, rather than fathers. Why not fathers? Surely if the tax issue was the only problem, it would makes sense to scrap that, create the new family allowance system, and continue to pay the money to fathers. The money, set aside and “separately paid or identified as money for children” could just as easily have gone to the fathers.

But that is not actually what happened. It appears to be a mystery. Why would fathers stop being the beneficiaries? Why on earth would government assistance specifically need to be paid to mothers?

The Conservative chancellor does actually hint at the real reason the money had to be given to mothers: he admits that the decision was made so that resources actually went to those who need them, in other words the children. And so not only was this new system created, but the caveat was added that under no circumstances were fathers given permission to collect the money.

 In the working class environment in which I was raised there were always hints and whispers of a bleaker time, a time when men had control over the financial help offered by the government. Put bluntly, I learned first hand about a time when money went directly to fathers–only for it to be spent down the pub, or on prostitution, or investments or (if you were middle class) on a car that only the man would drive or on… anything really, other than on the kids.

This is but one example of how the rhetoric of equality rings hollow. According to the theory of “equality feminism” men would be just as likely to spend the money on their children as women. Men are just the same as women. All we need to do is get women earning the same as men and then voila, our problems are solved. Except scratch a little deeper, and you see that men and women’s behaviour towards children is very different. Even the British government was forced to admit that men put themselves before their kids, as a rule, and that women, as a rule, put their kids before themselves.

Men and women couldn’t be more different, is the point I’m making. There’s a reason men decided to take the cash intended for their kids and spend it down the pub while their children (and wife) went hungry and cold. I’m not sure what that reason is but I do know a fact when I see it.

The inspiration for this post came from an online conversation I’d  had with another radfem the other day, where I criticized my generation of feminists (and yes, I extend that criticizm to myself) for falling for the myth of equality, and for believing that men and women could, or even should, cooperate. Men’s appropriation of the small gains women have made (I’m concentrating on the family here, but the rule applies to the workplace, to the judicial system, to the media)  happens insidiously, such as acting on the belief that it’s right, good and proper that they should take custody of the children after a divorce if the mother happened to have worked full time and they didn’t, and that a high-salaried mother should subsidize this decision. I know of real life cases where this sad and ridiculous state of affairs has taken place. Apparently, pregnancy and childbirth has been reduced to nothing because “we’re all equal now, and it’s no longer fair (on men) that men can’t give birth either, and therefore we should all act as though a man “sticking it in” and “childbirth” are exactly the same thing, with exactly the same repercussions for both parties, and that men and women have exactly the same stake in their offspring…

The struggle to defeat women is also done more subtly. It’s clear that the patriarchal family i.e having a man in the house, is partly designed to disrupt the natural bond between a mother and children. We all thought we were doing the feminist thing by getting the fathers involved in the parenting. But the result is that they have more power than their fathers’ generation. Women in the past knew that the only power they had was their dominion over their children. My generation, in our stupidity and need to believe in equality, have allowed the fathers of our children to take everything, without getting anything in return.

To the women out there who are still believers in equality, and who still have faith that men are capable of seeing women as equals, I would say this: first consider the history of misogyny, the burning times, the foot-binding, the genital mutilations, the porn…then ask yourself whether or not it’s unreasonable to say that, at the very least, men today, in 2012, should hand women political and economic equality on a plate, complete with an ingratiating smile. Let’s call it an apology. When they’ve done that then we can talk about letting them get their mits on our children.


13 thoughts on “Equality

  1. It’s not clear to me how making mother the only collector of family allowance helps much. Surely, any man who is determined to excercise selfish control his family’s finances would not let the tiny matter of his wife’s signature deter him?

    • That’s a good point. I’m sure men did continue to abuse the system, and their wives, but a “culture” developed whereby it was known and taken for granted that the money was for the mothers. Women knew that it had been designated for them, so under these new circumstances it would have been harder for a man to lord it over the family, claiming it was “his” money, in the way that he was likely to do when it came to his wage packet.

      • Yes, I can see that. But surely, there was never enough in the child allowance to cover all expenses that “naturally” fell into the wife’s lap in a misogynistic household (housekeeping, food and clothing for her and her children). So he only had to adjust his contribution to match his perception and we’re all back to square one.

      • Yes, but at least the government would know that the money, however paltry, was actually being spent on children…
        There are lots of studies out there, taken from many cultures, showing that when money is given to the mother, as opposed to the father, the children are better fed, better clothed and better educated.

        If you know about working class families, for example, you’d know that in many cases the woman is the main breadwinner. Even in this case, it is appropriate to give the child benefit allowance to her.

  2. Back in my blue-collar daze where I had the unfortunate circumstance of being in close physical proximity to the dudes, you could not help but overhear all of their shenanigans about avoiding paying child support or spousal support.

    Don’t know about places other than the U.S. but in many elbow-grease fields here, (if you have male employers especially) most are quite pleased to pay ‘under-the-table’ as it is;

    A. Good for the male employer, who absolves himself from paying payroll taxes, Medicare…

    B. Pay the man who has court -ordered child support payments in CASH, so the fecker can plead poverty as not to pay for the care of his children. Yet, in many circumstances this ‘daddy-dearest’ whines and complains about the mother of his children being a ‘bitch’ or a ‘c**t’ because she doesn’t want him to see the kids.

    In so many cases, the sperm donors are just pretending to give a shit about their children. In so many cases, he drags the mother into court numerous times for visiting rights just to HARASS her and make life miserable for HER. Has little to do with him having any nurturing capabilities.

    • I’m sure that’s just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to men not paying up.
      I found a Guardian article explaining that the current government in the UK have proposed that mothers should pay 100 pound out of their own pockets if they want the Child Support Agency to chase up fathers who refuse to pay. From what I have read, quite a lot of fathers refuse to pay maintenance, and yet ALL abusive fathers, even ones convicted of DV, have the “right” to see their children, and mothers have no right to refuse them.
      God it’s so fucked up.

      I’d like to believe that all the women out there who saw first-hand what their own father put their mother through during a custody battle have now all become radfems…. You can always hope.

      A family member of mine had her 3 year old stolen from her home by her husband as she was filing for divorce. He convinced the court she was an “unfit mother” whatever the fuck that means, (and it’s clearly a phrase that only a deeply misogynistic society could invent) . He then took the child and “cared” for her for the next 10 years UNTIL he found a girlfriend, whereby the girl was literally kicked out and sent back to her mother’s. The girl (now a woman) realized pretty quickly that her father had just been using her as a pawn.I wish this wasn’t a true story.

  3. Radfems know that we are not fighting for “equality with men” but “liberation from men”. The “equality” rhetoric can so easily be turned against women, as above, without any regard to past injustice or male behaviour, or the reasons past protections were needed to be put into place.

    Libfems believe the equality rhetoric. They have little regard for what feminist foremothers put in place, and believe the patriarchy’s lie that females and males are now ‘equal’ within our society. Hence they (unwittingly?) support the male agenda, believing they are fighting for ‘equality’ when in reality, all they are doing is undoing past feminist gains and protections. So much so, that they have moved beyond being Handmaidens of the Patriarchy to become Stepford-fems – they have moved beyond just carrying out the male orders, and now do it robotically of their own accord.

  4. (Hey “wobsy” looks like a real swell fellow – if he could marry any type of circus performer she would be, wait for it… a contortionist!! How clever and cute “wobsy”. Not.)

    Thanks for another concise, pointed post Cherry 🙂

    • Men on the left support radfems up to a point, but they’ll never, ever give up their porn.

      ETA: I wouldn’T say they *support* radfems, just that our directives sometimes overlap. Then again, the conservative right ARE anti-porn but they’re no friends of women.

  5. It’s called altruism. It’s called caring for others. It’s called being selfless. Men are typically none of those things. Men are selfish, egotistical human beings and yet they are the ones for the most part who are in charge of our planet? Scratches head. …


    • It’s so bizarre the way men have managed to convince themselves and women that 1) men work and 2) they are natural born leaders. The mother of patriarchal reversals.Their “leadership” has turned the planet into a garbage can, and all the important and necessary work is done by women.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s