Kramer v Kramer, a real life dilemma

 Subject: Kramer v Kramer, a real life dilemma.

Are women more touchy, more liable to 'fly off the handle' than men or is it always down to circumstances. Cultures differ enormously in the attitude to the role gender plays in a society. From the Islamists control and assumption of total guardianship of women, (women becoming a possession), to the acute 21st century sense of a women's rights vis a vis men, promulgated in many western societies but not across the world.

Men over the ages bore the responsibility of protecting and providing, economically  for women who were seen as physically weaker and this was accentuated in the union of marriage where assumptions on protection are made and codified in a church. The instinct to fight and protect was also accentuated throughout childhood where it was implicitly right for women and children to be  ushered into the lifeboat first, leaving the men to survive as best they could. On a more plebeian level men were expected to give up their seats to a woman and only men were conscripted to fight and if necessary die for their country.  They were expected to do the work thought unfit for a woman and since the dawn of man, role -play was clear both in the military and in civilian life, men do the heavy lifting and women were (at least in the Bronte books) placed on a pedestal and admired for their beauty not their brains.

All this was built on an assumption of a common respect and compromise but in this new age, equal rights has dissolved the roles into what is more akin to an adversarial relationships where men and women are assumed to be equal and opposite and the work they do is similar if not the same. Its only in childbirth and child rearing are the traditional norms retained, if not strengthened by the law being more specific in defining the rights of the child.

The brilliant film Kramer v Kramer highlighted the prescriptive nature of the law when it came to matrimonial rights, particularly the rights of custody of a child. We were mystified by the laws lack of empathy for the man (Dustin Hoffman) who had after a shaky start had been exemplary in bringing up his son when his wife (Meryl Streep) walked out on him. Her decision to return and demand full rights for the repossession of the child left us emotionally troubled.  That the law advocated her rights, whilst so easily repudiating his rights seemed so wrong.

The cult of femininity which seems to demand not only equality but superiority has made enormous strides such that many men feel cuckolded by the opposite sex, so indebted are we by motherhood. The confusion young men feel being first attracted and then rejected by a girl, in law, irrespective of the signals she originally put out, insists it's her choice which makes the relationship one sided. The disaster of rejection is made worse by the accusation of coercion, not the threat of physical force but through sexual allure the women is in a position to control where what was deemed appropriate, is now  inappropriate and becomes an indictable offence.

Sexual attraction is an ambiguous minefield. The straight, the gay, the bisexual all have a different focus when it comes to being attracted. Attraction itself covers such a wide range, it can be physical or their poise, their movement their voice or accent even their smell or the clothes they wear, each contributes to a sense of  attractiveness. Even the tricky subject of hormonal changes which trigger responses in women and  underly  natures procreation are a factor. Attraction has a moral, ethical and a religious aspect which govern us depending on our faith or the lack of.  Is it any wonder then that what seems simple, perhaps the most natural and emotional fulfilling event in our lives it can become controversial and litigious when  the sexual act is seeped in a cultural misappropriation.  In some cultures having intercourse is as uncomplicated as washing your hands, in others it's the most reverential thing you can do magnified by its ties to family and upbringing.

Holding hands is an outward example of the displacement of 'self' into something wider and  argued, more fulfilling but it's not without a warning.  This is new territory which holds its own dangers. It's not a benign event since it has an effect which is different for men as for women. It's not equal and never has been, it's not only the physical difference but also the psychological difference in the value men and women place on a relationship, one searching for economic security the other emotional security which is often obscured by a lack of cultural objectivity.

Men are often categorised as stronger yet in so many ways they find themselves disadvantaged by social norms and the presumption that women are more fragile. It is clearly wrong when one observes in the world at large  women carrying by far the largest burden and only in the West women were deemed delicate.

Kramer v Kramer taught us the lie of that proposition.