All this lip service to inclusion, and keeping an eye out for the minority, but nobody thought the minority of single parents, (single fathers) might take issue with a group called Momazonians.
Ya ya, sure, most single parents, or working parents who have child care concerns, are women. Yet most firefighters are men but we don't call them firemen anymore because we recognize that as bad.
I became a single parent when my youngest was still a baby. I was juggling my career, my family, and my home all by myself. It was brutal and I felt incredibly lonely and isolated. Every time I tried to find services or groups for single parents it was always "Women's support services" or "mums and bubs meetup". Parenting babies solo is a difficult experience, there is a reason that a ton of government-funded support services exist. I can't grasp why they're all exclusive, however.
On the other hand in my professional life, I was having inclusivity rammed down my throat. I was being banned from using certain words due to them not being inclusive in my professional life at the same time I was being shut out from everything in my parenting life.
Not one woman I spoke to about my issues seemed to see the double standard, the response would be "oh, but most mums do the parenting". I don't think these educated women would have been impressed if I'd replied: "oh, but most men do the work so why do you want a promotion". Of course, I'd never say that but I wanted to. I was simply stunned how educated women who have spent their entire adult life pushing for inclusion could be so blind.
EDIT: For the sake of presenting a fair argument I just googled support services in my area and it now appears that there are gender neutral ones available. This is a change from 3 years ago, which was when my experience was lived. Importantly the governments' official support services now have gender-neutral terms in their names. Most of the independent ones are still women exclusive but at least some change has happened.
I feel good about this. I personally wrote to government members and influential media about my issues when they were occurring. I might have had a horrible time during my experience but hopefully, the next generation of parents has it better.
I work in the student loan industry and there are loans specifically for single mother's... father's need not apply. It bothers me every time I see it.
Heck, why my daughter registered an American Girl doll, they sent me an "id card" declaring me the proud mother of my daughter and her doll. So I guess I should be happy to be a mom.
As such, women are the most affected by these policies.
The question I see is, are these Momazonians advocating for policies that support all genders equally, or are they advocating for policies which only help women? Your comment suggest the answer is "no" or "only accidentally", but nothing in the article supports that.
My reading of the article suggests that they want "backup day care benefit for employees ... providing help for parents", that is, it would apply to all parents, including single fathers and families with two married fathers.
You mentioned gender neutral terms like 'firefighter'. I think there are better examples which show how a group can use a seemingly discriminatory term to support equal rights.
One example is the National Woman's Party. They had an important role in passing the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920, which provided suffrage - women didn't have special voting rights compared to men, but equal voting rights.
They then proposed the Equal Rights Amendment in 1921: "No political, civil, or legal disabilities or inequalities on account of sex or on account of marriage, unless applying equally to both sexes, shall exist within the United States or any territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Again, equality of genders, not preferential treatment. Indeed, this was a sticking point against the ERA. Women had special treatment. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment :
> Their debate reflected the wider tension in the developing feminist movement of the early 20th century between two approaches toward gender equality. One approach emphasized the common humanity of women and men, while the other stressed women's unique experiences and how they were different from men, seeking recognition for specific needs. The opposition to the ERA was led by Mary Anderson and the Women's Bureau beginning in 1923. These feminists argued that legislation including mandated minimum wages, safety regulations, restricted daily and weekly hours, lunch breaks, and maternity provisions would be more beneficial to the majority of women who were forced to work out of economic necessity, not personal fulfillment
The NWP continued to support equality between the genders in the civil rights era of the 1960s.
Thus, just like the "National Woman's Party" didn't seek special treatment for women, I don't think it's correct to look at a term like "Momazonians" and conclude they want special treatment for moms.
As another example, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People" seeks "to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate race-based discrimination", not the advancement of African-Americans over other races.
None of those points are correct.
The fact that there is a NWP, a NOW, a White house council on women and girls, and no equivalent for men, is a problem. An infectious one that leads to things like the "violence against women act" that reminds the minority of DV victims that they are an after thought.
The name of this group, and the name of NOW, NWP, WCoWaG are all symptoms of a larger problem. We took a easily generalized concept about how we should treat and respect each other as human beings, and applied it in an excessively specialized and snowflake way.
As hackers and programmers most of the people here should be smart enough to know why snowflake code is bad. The same applies to our laws, and even our societal norms.
That said, I strongly disagree with your statement that there is a problem.
The original goal of the National Woman's Party was woman's suffrage. What would the equivalent for men have been? There is none, because men already had the right to vote.
The NWP then pushed for the Equal Rights Amendment. What would the equivalent for men have been? Answer: The Equal Rights Amendment.
Had ERA been ratified then there would have been no doubt that the Violence Against Women Act would equally be applied to men in the same circumstances. As it is, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act#Cov...
Do you support/would you have supported the ERA?
NOW's foundational goal was "To take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men". Do you support that goal, but just have a problem with the word "Women" in the title?
Do you support the goals of the NAACP, but are simply opposed to the name?
What of 'Black Lives Matter', which also has the goal of racial equality? Note that I am firmly on the side of the critics of the term "All Lives Matter" described at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Lives_Matter#Criticism . That is, "All Lives Matter" ignores the use of "Black" to highlight structural racism in the US and the lesser value placed on black lives over white ones.
Note that NWP was also racist, but it's not like changing the name to "National People's Party" would have fixed that.
I have no idea what 'WCoWaG' means.
Circling back, do you support the goals of the Momamazons, but are simply opposed to the "Mom" in the name? Is your opposition to their goals based on information given in the article, and if so, what?