Can we imagine mother's day being presaged by newspaper & magazine articles reminding us how so many mothers are so bad, that they are the primary perpetrators of child abuse and equal contenders in the competition for most domestically violent? Perhaps one day, in the week before mothers' day, we'll hear about their pre-eminence in the the divorce courts and how often they use the children as a weapon against their ex-husbands; we'll see studies of their contributions to delinquency in teenagers because their fathers have been pushed out and how of the thousands and thousands of fathers who lose contact with their children each year, a major fraction are in point of fact innocent victims of Machiavellian motherhood.
How about a Hallmark card greeting: "I'd wish you a happy mother's day, but given the crimes of your gender, I don't think you deserve one"? Or just "Screw you, mom" might be more direct and carry the same sentiment, don't you think?
I'm not holding my breath, and anyway, it wouldn't be right, now would it? Instead, I will note that the lead-in to mother's day includes a definite spike in all the women-as-victim rhetoric. In the last couple of mothers' days, I have noted various charities, nominally concerned with child victims, have started staging domestic violence "awareness" campaigns, built around what dad supposedly does to mom. That is, on mother's day, it's not enough that mom's the heroine, dad's gotta be the bad guy too.
But now dad's gotta be the bad guy on father's day as well. We get editorials who think that fathers' day is for complaining about deadbeat dads and Time magazine claims that fathers don't deserve their day based on gender politics masquerading as "science". Seriously, guys, Time thinks monkeys are better than we are.
I'm a father, and I'm not going to have any kind of a father's day, whether these people want me to or not. I don't want you to feel sorry for me, I just want you to know, and to be outraged, as I am, by the revolting double standard of our age.
(Update: sometimes the logic of the father-critics truly astounds me. Here is a blogger who quotes Baskerville's assertion: "Most fatherless children result from fathers being forcibly separated from their children by courts." then follows it with the statement: "there are still far too many fathers who spend far too little time with their children. And while there are many explanations for this, hardly any of these explanations amount to real excuses." How much of an "excuse" does he want? If contact with your children is illegal and this is not enough of an "excuse" then, God help us, but we're all doomed.)
(Update 2: Two more articles slamming fathers for Fathers Day: The Washington Post makes fun of know-all fathers at the museum with their children, disregarding the positive note that, er, these are fathers who have taken their children to the museum. And NewsMax thinks you're more likely to become president if dad's not around. Thanks guys, see yah 'round (but not if I see you first). Hell, even presidential candidates think it's OK to dis' fathers on Father's Day.
The Onion's cartoon, on the other hand, has a much more valid point to make. How much of this are we supposed to take?)
(Whup! And one more: USA Today thinks that the typical sitcom moron dad is better than the real thing.)