In the wake of parental reactions to a recent New York Times article discussing the role that fathers have in the lives of their children, authors discussed the implications of the Women’s march for equality upon the day to day lives of fathers and children. The article was met with a large amount of ridicule by the New Jersey parenting community and the participants of the New Jersey women’s day march took to social media to air their grievances. In a response article published by the Huffington Post, Emily McCombs discusses the major problem that parents had with the Times’ publication of the article about the effect of the march on the lives of men, stating that most parents found the article ridiculous. The New York Times even issued an apology to parents who were offended by the content of the article with a simple tweet stating, “We blew it.”
The implication of the response to the New York Times article are loaded. While many supporters of the recent marches for women’s equality in the United States often purport the ideology that women in the United States are not viewed as valuable by their male counterparts and that this treatment must be demanded from the culture at large. The supporters of this school of thought were, in large part, the same individuals who expressed outrage that the New York Times would publish an article describing the effects of the march and the temporary absence of women on the lives of men and children. According to an editor from the Times, the article in question was written in support of the women’s day march.
The article was an effort to show the world the value of women by describing the severe difficulty that men and children experienced because of a temporary absence of women brought on by the function. Although this conclusion is virtually flawed in an of itself due to the fact that American women are often away from their families in modern times without any major conflict with their significant others, the New York Times obviously attempted to support the march by exaggerating the significance of the absence of several hundred women in one day. Instead of taking this exaggerated narrative and supporting it, as is their typical response, supporters of the women’s equality march heavily criticized the Times article, proving once again that the creation of “news” based on the concepts constituents support instead of developing objective reports of actual news, always has unwanted consequences.