"Fathers Count"

Mens News Daily ^ | June 7, 2003 | Isaiah Flair

[Z in Oregon]

Fathers Count

June 4, 2003

---

by Isaiah Flair

---

I just read Stephen Baskerville's insightful and timely commentary on government marriage programs. It occurred to me that if the government or anyone else wants to save marriage, it has to be done in significant part...perhaps in most significant part...by addressing divorce.

You know, if presumptive joint physical custody were legislated into being and enforced as binding upon the family courts (with allowable exceptions being specifically delineated and, where objected to by one divorcing spouse, subject to a strict scrutiny standard), divorce rates would plummet like a vulture shot out of the sky.

That comparision holds in more ways than one.

Sociologically, one major unspoken presumption in the public's acceptance of draconian treatment of noncustodial parents (and the financial assets thereof) is that he (the divorced husband) must have abandoned her (the divorced wife). Of course, statistically, that is untrue by a very big ratio. Husbands only initiate divorce in 25% of cases, and that may be even less when the marital union has produced children.

Simply put, most parents don't want to lose their children, to become mere visitors in their children's lives.

Thus, the group of parents that is most likely to lose their children in the event of a divorce (fathers) are the ones most unlikely to intiate the divorce in the first place.

Correspondingly, the group of parents that is least likely to lose their children in the event of a divorce (mothers) are the ones most likely to intiate the divorce in the first place.

Basic math, a very simple inverse relationship between probable effect and source of cause.

Another major unspoken presumption in the public's acceptance of draconian treatment of noncustodial parents (and the emotional health thereof) is that he (the children's father) must not have wanted custody of the couple's children, or probably just wants visitation anyway, or probably wouldn't be much good raising children because he has a Y chromosome.

The first two parts of that, the idea that men don't want custody and just barely want visitation, is a myth belied by the fact that virtually every mainstream men's group is a father's rights group: an association of guys who love their own children and want to raise them.

The third part, that a divorced/single father wouldn't be much good raising children (compared to his children's equally divorced/single mother) because he has a Y chromosome, is an interesting one.

Interesting, in part, because it is a view put out into society and the media by both traditionalists and gender-feminists. A number of people would presume that traditionalists and gender-feminists have opposite points of view.

A number of people presume incorrectly.

Both traditionalists and gender-feminists scoff at the idea of fathers changing diapers, giving bottles, singing lullabies, drying tears, soothing fears, and happily, capably providing all the care and devotion that their little son or daughter may need.

It is this scoffing which feeds the systemic presumption of maternal custody in divorce. That presumption, in turn, is the one thing above all else which brought the divorce rates to the high level they are at today, and is likely to take them even higher as time goes by.

But let's be real: the physical tasks of taking care of one's children are not difficult to master.

And, moreover and fundamentally, the deepness of love that a good father feels for his children is in no way less than that of a good mother for her children.

Love is a human trait, not one restricted to, or found disproportionately within, only one half of the human race.

Isaiah Flair

[Lorianne]

Yes! We need Rebuttal Presumption of Joint Physical Custody (RPJPC). This would revolutionize divorce overnight.

The real thing though. Not part time parenting. Shared taking the kids to the doctor and staying up all night with a sick kid, shared homework help, shared shlepping the kids around to all their activities, shared not being able to go on business trips or work late because you have to take care of the kid(s). The real deal, not fake weeke-end parenting. Let's require parents to SHARE real parenting and it may be that it is more practicle and sensible to just stay married.

[Lorianne]

Interesting, in part, because it [the view that father's are less competent at parenting] is a view put out into society and the media by both traditionalists and gender-feminists. A number of people would presume that traditionalists and gender-feminists have opposite points of view. A number of people presume incorrectly.

Exacto-mundo and bingo.

[chemicalman]

I been divorced for over a year, now. My divorce papers don't have any specifics as to visitation of my child and I, but the x and I had a "verbal" agreement for visitation.
In the past 3 - 4 months, I think I had seen my daughter 2 times for a few hours each. Ex kept coming up with excuses that they were busy or making up some excuse to not let me see her.
I recently went see another lawyer to get my visitation down in writing, so my ex wouldn't have excuses for when I have visitation. When he saw the origional papers, he mentioned that they were all screwed up. He said he would've "lost sleep" if he had ever wrote something up like that. When he asked who wrote the papers up, and I answered him, he said that was his ex wife. This is going to be very interesting.

I wish they would make some sort of manditory visitation so I wouldn't have to deal with this fiasco.

[FReepaholic]

>>...The real thing though. Not part time parenting. Shared taking the kids to the doctor and staying up all night with a sick kid, shared homework help, shared shlepping the kids around to all their activities, shared not being able to go on business trips or work late because you have to take care of the kid(s). The real deal, not fake weeke-end parenting. Let's require parents to SHARE real parenting and it may be that it is more practicle and sensible to just stay married...<<

AMEN! I'd go for that. (I'm a non-custodial father, by the way).

I just recently have heard about "Monday to Monday Visitation" where the children stay at mom's a week, then dad's a week, etc. I initially agreed to the usual "Dad gets every other weekend" deal because I didn't know any better. Now, that the divorce is near to being finalized, I'll attempt to get the "Monday to Monday" arrangement.

I believe in Quantity Time, not Quality Time.

(and for those who might say that I should never have left in the first place, I slept on the couch for 3 years in a "hostile work environment" in order not to be away from my children. The madness finally had to end, though)

[Orlando]

God bless you for this article. The family courts and the corrupt child support system is killing off alot of fathers in more ways than one. It's a war against fathers/men, and boys. vet out

[Aliska]

Maybe we should go back to fault divorce. It's horrible what things have come down to and how people play the system, to the detriment of the kids. There are thousands of children who have grown up without fathers and they have no idea what a real family is supposed to be.

Maybe instead of all this sex ed in schools, they would do better to teach people how to get along with one another.

Most of what is wrong with marriages is common discourtesy and disregard for the other.

The other factor is the almighty dollar. Women tend to want to trade up sometimes.

There are major problems with sexual incompatibility as well. Our ancestors didn't seem to have a problem getting it up.

[GrandMoM]

Fathers Count....They sure do, that's why I let my ex have the children as much as he wanted. We stayed in contact weekly to discuss the problems and joys of the children. God gave him those children as well as me and we (including GOD here) guided them along the way together.

[nothingnew]

FYI

FMCDH

[Z in Oregon]

You know, if presumptive joint physical custody were legislated into being and enforced as binding upon the family courts (with allowable exceptions being specifically delineated and, where objected to by one divorcing spouse, subject to a strict scrutiny standard), divorce rates would plummet like a vulture shot out of the sky.

That comparision holds in more ways than one.

P I N G !

[Fraulein]

Fathers DO count! My mother divorced my father, and yet we saw my father virtually every weekend. And I know those weekends meant the world to him. My father, god rest his soul, remained a constant part of my life, and, in fact, he was always more supportive of me than my mother, and he was always engaged in my life more than my mother, despite the divorce. Fathers CAN continue to have strong relationships with their children after divorces. In fact, I think we grew closer to our father AFTER the divorce. All is not always lost.

[farmfriend]

Bump for the rights of men.

[kancel]

I really respect what I think this guy is trying to say. And yet he seems to be getting it wrong. I know he is trying to say that both parents are equally necessary but in so doing he makes them out to be so alike that only one truly would be necessary. What is that saying "If we are exactly alike then one of us is uneccesary?"

Two exact parents isn't what a child needs. Two complimentray parents is what a child needs. Being a parent isn't about diaper changing or meal preparation or washing laundry- any goon with three brain cells to rub together can manage those things. Though two such goons would certainly be nice (so one goon could take a break occasionally) one goon would suffice just fine.

What makes both parents equally valuable is that they are *different* and like it or not some of those differences are most likely at least a little bit tied to the fact that they are different genders. We have three boys, almost 6, 4 1/2 and 1 1/2. Because I don't want my boys to emasculated liberal sissies I try really hard to not freak out when they climb things, or touch bugs or do anything else that is really more "boyish" than anything I would willingly choose to do if I had three girls. But try as I might, I AM a girl and I don't like bugs and I can't climb a tree and I am completely unteachable when it comes to throwing a ball. It is my husband that taught our at-the-time not even three year old how to climb on top of his play house (its a log cabin I swear!!) and then brought me AND the video camera outside. (The video camera was not to record the climb but to record MY panic attack as I watched him climb.)

Or- I am the official owie-kisser. Not always the owie-bandager/fixer but the owie-kisser. My husband never gets offered an owie to kiss better. He gets offered owies to fix (like the inch long splinter that took pliers and an exacto knife to get out) but not to kiss, becuase kissing is a sweet-momma job. However, when we recently went to Disneyland/California Adventure I might as well have been chopped liver when it came to the scary rides- none of the boys wanted to ride with me. Protecting first-time roller coaster riders is a strong-brave-poppa job. (The oldest even did California Screamin'- momma didn't even do roller coasters like that until she was at least 12 and never in a million years would have thought to take a 5 year old on such a ride, but poppa did.)


And through individual traits not necessarily related to gender I have more patience with kid like silliness. My husband on the other hand knows some things that the boys have this inate desire to know- like things about tools, and sports and cars. And it has to be genetic because they are with me all day and have absolutely no interest in washing machines (except maybe to take it apart) or needles and pins (cept maybe to stick in their fingers) or baking pans (unless of course the cookies are out to cool and they say "momma can I please have just one- I promise I'll still eat my dinner")

But it isn't because he loves more than me or I love more than him. It is because we both we love- and the love of both is equally necessary for our boys.

[visualops]

Women tend to want to trade up sometimes

Huh?
What about all the men who trade younger?
I think that's a ridiculous, and untrue, generalization.

[Under the Radar]

Wow, great post! Thank you for the ping!

[Under the Radar]

Seven weeks have passed now since she left me
She shows her face to ask me how I've been
She says the kids are fine, that they miss me,
Maybe I could come and babysit sometime

She says "Are you OK? I was worried about you.
Can you forgive me? I hope that you'll be happy"
I said

I'm so happy that I can't stop crying
I'm so happy I'm laughing through my tears

Saw a friend of mine, he said "I was worried about you,
I heard she had another man, I wondered how you felt about it"

I'm so happy that I can't stop crying
I'm so happy I'm laughing through my tears

I saw my lawyer, Mr Good News, he got me
Joint custody and legal separation

I'm so happy that I can't stop crying
I'm laughing through my tears
I'm laughing through my tears

I took a walk alone last night
I looked up at the stars to try and find an answer in my life
I chose a star for me, I chose a star for him,
I chose two stars for my kids and one star for my wife

Something made me smile, something seemed to ease the pain
Something about the universe and how it's all connected ...

The park is full of Sunday fathers and melted ice cream
You try to do the best within the given time
A kid should be with his mother -- everybody knows that;
What can a father do but babysit sometimes?

I saw that friend of mine, he said "You look different somehow," I said
"Everybody's got to leave their darkness sometime."

I'm so happy that I can't stop crying
I'm laughing through my tears
I'm laughing through my tears

I'm so happy that I can't stop crying
I'm laughing through my tears
I'm laughing through my tears

[Centurion2000]

BUMP

[SauronOfMordor]

"Women tend to want to trade up sometimes"
Huh? What about all the men who trade younger? I think that's a ridiculous, and untrue, generalization.

Of my divorced friends, two were caused by the wife already having a new boyfriend she wanted to trade up to. One occured immediately after the husband declared bankruptcy (and she then acquired a new boyfriend). The fourth is occurring because the wife wants greater freedom to sleep around (she's currently making plans to go on a week's camping trip with two guys). None of the divorces among my friends involved him wanting to "trade up". It's unlikely, too, except among the wealthy, due to the financial burdens of child support and losing your house making you an unattractive prospect to many "trade up" candidates

We've heard about men's "mid-life crisis", which generally occurs at around 40-50. Women have a mid-life crisis too, which generally occurs around late-20's/early-30's. It's the point where they've had enough time to evaluate their current husband's future prospects, and they still retain enough of their physical attractiveness to be a "trade-up" candidate for a more financially-successful guy

[visualops]

The experiences of your two friends do not change the fact that 'women trading up' is a generalization.

[BibChr]

I do have another thought, or two.

First, the mere fact that most men don't initiate divorce does not mean necessarily that most men don't cause it. I am not saying they do, I'm just saying it isn't that simple. For instance, a man cheats on his wife. She divorces him. He did not initiate it. But he caused it.

Secondly, this presupposes the situation of a wronged, hurt, wounded man shut out of his children's lives. Sometimes, I have no doubt, this is true.

So we're told that 50-50 is better? Better to do (we're told) as Solomon said -- split the living child in two? (But in Solomon's case, this was to prove the real parent, because NO decent parent would WANT his child split in two.)

That isn't obvious to me. Suppose a husband wronged his mate, was divorced, and the woman remarries a decent man. (This applies equally with gender reversal.) What would be best for the child? To be split in two, to have two different houses with two different standards and two different sets of rules, and no real home? To have two daddies (or mommies)? To be in a position to play off the two houses, in terms of which makes him the best offer ("Mommy makes you go to bed at 8:30? Heck, I'll let you stay up until ten!")?

I offer this mainly as perspective-broadening input.

Dan