This Sunday, we celebrate Father's Day, a chance for some of us to thank our husbands for their role in our children's lives, and for most of us to connect with our living fathers and grandfathers, or to remember those who have already departed this earth.
I think that fatherhood gets short shrift in our culture. In what I think was initially an admirable intention to support women who are raising children alone, we have ended up promoting a social message that fathers aren't needed, that they aren't necessary for children to have. And the culture is listening: 4 in 10 children in the United States are born out-of-wedlock, and face the problems that children in this country can suffer from when they grow up without a father.
But even though statistics consistently show that children do better when they grow up in a stable home with both a mother and a father who are married to each other, we keep pushing the same devastating cultural message: fathers are optional, nice if you have one, but really not needed at all.
The previous generation's notions of feminism are partially responsible for that message. The view that men and women are naturally and constantly in a state of battle with each other, that traditional gender roles implied thankless servitude for a woman but smug autonomy for a man, and that aside from the provision of genetic material there is nothing a man can do for his family that a woman can't do just as well on her own had an effect on the slow dissolution of the American family. As many women learned, some the hard way, a man who is constantly told he isn't necessary is likely to take the message to heart and move on, away from his wife and "her" children.
Of course, men have their share of blame in this, too. The ease with which so many men can and have walked away from their children and their responsibility never ceases to amaze and disgust; we don't have the cultural phenomenon of the "deadbeat dad" for nothing.
With negative cultural forces coming at them from both sides, though, I think it's more necessary than ever to applaud and celebrate those fathers who have dedicated themselves to their families, who love their wives and are involved with their children on a daily basis. We have a tendency to think we can't say things like that--that celebrating fathers who stick around, roll up their shirt sleeves, change some diapers and cook some meals, work for their families' support and set aside selfishness to put their wives and children first is somehow denigrating or scolding fathers who haven't achieved this sort of success. But that hesitance to affirm all the good fathers is just one more thing we do to make it seem like fatherhood isn't all that important; nobody says, on Mother's Day, that we should really tone down the whole celebration because there are bad mothers out there, do they?
The truth is, fathers, as much as mothers, need to hear that they are needed and important, that what they do is appreciated, and that they are making a difference in the lives of their children and families. I plan to spend some time this weekend making sure my husband, father, and father-in-law all hear that from me; I know how vital they all are in our family's life, and it's especially necessary for them to hear that message in a culture that often dismisses their role altogether.
*****
And that will do it for me this round! Thanks again, Rod, for letting me blog here; I always enjoy it tremendously. And thanks to everyone who put up with me while Rod was gone--see you in the comment boxes!
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Rick @ 4:16 PM writes:
“[D]efault sole custody leads to a graver evil. It requires judges to abrogate parents' natural rights — with no finding of unfitness or fault. “
“Parents’ natural rights” don’t enter into the picture. The decision is not between parents and non-parents, but between two parents, based on what is in the best interests of the child. (I have severe questions about whether any Human has “natural rights” of any sort whatsoever, but that’s a different thread.) The family, after all, is not going to be “intact”, so decisions made on standards applicable to “intact” families are not relevant. If two parents are going to separate, then a judge MUST make a decision as to where a child would be better off living. Unless the parents are planning on both still living in the same household after the divorce, then one parent or the other is going to have to take charge of taking care of the child’s needs. Not merely the financial needs, but the decision-making needs—where the child goes to church, schooling, medical care, that sort of thing. If the pragmatic elements are weighted more in favor of one parent than another, then that’s where the kid goes.
In 20 years of legal practice, I’ve NEVER run into a situation where the parents are exactly equal in all ways. It’s impossible. That’s why we have Human judges instead of judge-computers, and that’s why the “best interest” standard is not a cookie-cutter standard. Each situation is different, and each judge considers different parts of the situation in making his/her decision.
If anything, default sole custody when parents part is an inherently better standard. It requires that one person be given command of the child’s situation, based on the circumstances of the situation as a whole. A child needs a clear line of authority in order to have stability in his/her life. “Joint custody”, in practice, all too often devolves into one parent making the decisions, while the other parent–the one who is not around on a daily basis—starts to second-guess the other, at which point the sniping and the snide comments and the bad blood start.
If someone wants “joint custody” that badly, then they should make more of an effort to stay with the other person. If the other person wants to leave----well, that’s why we have litigation; to expose all the facts and circumstances of a case to the harsh light of scrutiny. Why does the leaver want to go ? Is there something wrong with the “leav-ee” ? A judge makes the call, and a decision is made. Everyone knows where they stand, including (and especially !) the child.
Stability for and the welfare of the child are the priorities, not a parent’s chimerical “rights”.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
Badger I would have to heavily caution men into entering marriage. There are no protections for men. If a man is still going to marry a woman, I would advice him to stay away from American women.
That's very true Badger. The facts support your position.
It's really kind of sad, too, because the backlash against women over the next generation is going to destroy what little family is left in the broader culture.
As I said above, I'm a happily married father, but am under no illusion about the state of fatherhood in America. And hence Father's Day has become a day for society to whisper, "Wow, those (foolish) fathers must be heroes to be a family man in this day and age. Didn't they get the memo they have no family rights and get routinely mocked?"
Well, in this generation, men have finally got the memo. Minority fatherhood is already history, gone, finished - no need to relate that well-known story here. But as for white children (10-40-40-10 income breakdown):
Underclass: 70% illegitimate (up from 45% in the boomer generation)
Working class: 40% illegitimate (10% for boomers)
Middle class: 20% illegitimate (4% for boomers)
Overclass: 5% illegitimate (2% for boomers)
----------------
Total average: 28% (11% for boomers)
It's easy to spot that bloggers on threads like this are middle-to-overclass elite types. They are still living 1950's lives - for now. But the bulk of the population finds Father's Day as old-fashioned as that old show Father Knows Best.
Here's one way fathers can avoid the custody battle problems people are debating: Stay married to the mother of your children.
If you get divorced or have kids with someone not your wife, the government is forced to make the difficult decision as to what's in your kid's best interest.
On another note, while we appreciate the praise, it's sad that we fathers get credit for changing "a few diapers" and playing any part at all in their kids' lives. Many moms work day and night but then feel responsible for any little thing that doesn't get done.
Here's one way fathers can avoid the custody battle problems people are debating: Stay married to the mother of your children.
Great idea. Except mothers can divorce at any time, for any reason or none, whether the fathers like it or not. And in many cases they are essentially paid to do so (see my link about child support awards encouraging divorce above).
To answer Sig's question: I certainly think wives should be able to divorce addicts, abusers and adulterers. Heck, I think they should be able to divorce anyone at all; I don't think the state need involve itself policing divorces for fault.
But: If a woman wants out, and her husband is a fit parent and not guilty of fault, he should have the presumptive right to 50/50 custody, if he wants it. He shouldn't have to pay alimony or spousal support. And a lack of cause for divorce should be taken into account when distributing marital assets.
Let folks leave unhappy but nonabusive marriages and start again, by all means — but we better stop paying them to do so, if we want a shot at preserving marriage.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.