September 20th, 2005


I really shouldn't read the National Post

I haven't been able to find this article online, so I'm copying it in below the cut. Warning: crazy ranting against "radical feminists" ahead.

Collapse )

This article is just... crazy. I hardly know where to start. The basic premise is that family law legislation as it currently exists in Ontario was written by crazy radical feminists and designed to punish men and give women all kinds of advantages. The article explicitly recognizes that the laws, as written, are gender-neutral, but insists that this doesn't matter because the secret intent of the law is to benefit women. Then there are a whole series of poorly-explained examples of property division, in which the women benefits and the man suffers. But the genders have been assigned by the author of the article! The same outcomes would occur no matter the genders of the people involved! Rather than acknowledge that Ontario's family laws might not have been designed for those wacky radical feminists, however, our author simply declares that the intent was to favour wives, and "may in fact have backfired".

Now, I'm hardly a legal expert. And I'm sure that family laws are convoluted and sometimes seem nonsensical. And that there are times when the outcomes seem terribly unfair -- particularly to the person who ends up having to pay child or spousal support. But this insistance, in the face of admitted evidence to the contrary, that it's all a vast feminist conspiracy, is just... strange.

And if there is a vast feminist conspiracy, I want in, dammit! Where can I sign up to start taking advantage of hapless males?