Babble

a magazine and community for the new urban parent

Strollerderby

Father's Rights: Part I

According to John Fowler, Fathers 4 Justice Board Member and activist, one of his group's primary goals is "to promote equality in family courts."  The organization's tagline reads "every father is a superhero to his children" which is fitting, given that the group in Britain uses daring stunts to draw attention to the issues of shared custody, including demonstrating outside of Buckingham Palace and the House of Commons wearing Batman and Robin costumes.  These methods haven't translated as well in the States, and father's rights groups here tend to favor legislative solutions rather than superhero antics.

Such heroics weren't always necessary -- at least by fathers.  According to reporter Susan Dominus' New York Times Magazine related piece, children were considered part of men's property until the 1850s.  This was eventually replaced by the practice of awarding sole maternal custody on the theory that young children were best cared for during their tender years by their mothers.  Since the late 70s custody has been awarded from the standpoint of the best interests of the child, an amorphous concept many father's rights groups believe naturally favors the mother.

Not surprisingly, the uncomfortable intersection of law and personal choice never fails to raise the blood pressure of those on the Left and Right, especially when it comes to issues such as father's rights.  People understandably feel strongly about their personal choices -- kids, family, marriage, abortion  -- and are willing to become a superhero or heroine or junkyard dog or martyr making sure those rights aren't trampled upon. 

But in the case of custody, I think the "tender years" proponents were right.  Even though biological determinism is outre´, the mother-child bond is undeniably biological in the beginning: Think pregnancy, delivery, hormones, breastfeeding. 

Whether we, or our bosses who grant us 6 weeks unpaid leave, or our exes agree, babies and young children need their mothers more than they need their fathers in the beginning.  Awarding 50% custody of children under 3 years of age is an act of total ignorance.   And I think groups like Fathers 4 Justice are naive to think otherwise.

To Be Continued... 


Comments

 

Rahab said:

Consider that since 1970 the divorce rate has skyricketed. You are really comparing apples and oranges when you use statistics form a time when divorce occured in less than 5% of all marriages. Today 70% of divorces are initiated by women. So a man could get married, be a good dad and have is wife decide she is bored and the courts will remove his children from his care through no fault of his own other than not being the perfect husband and anticipating her evey whim.

Fathers are necessary. 85% of all prison inmates have one thing in common: They had no father in their home growing up. Could it be that the mere daily presence of a father is even more important than that of the mother?

the law is misandrist and kind of proves that feminists lie when they claim they want equal rights. need more proof? The VAWA is terrifyingly misandrist. Absolutley terrifying and often used to deprive a man of the right to see his children based soley on her allegation of violence - absolutely no proof required.

January 3, 2007 10:48 AM
 

biologyfool said:

"...the mother-child bond is undeniably biological in the beginning: Think pregnancy, delivery, hormones, breastfeeding."

So then adopted children can stay with their fathers?

January 3, 2007 1:04 PM
 

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) said:

Biology fool,

Clearly, this issue as discussed here relates to biological parents, but I think the issues of attachment and separation are equally crucial for adopted children.

What do you think?

January 3, 2007 7:55 PM
 

biologyfool said:

How does this issue just relate to parents that have children the natural way (what you called biological)?  I'd say it relates to legal parents of which adoptive parents are certainly included.

I just think you've missed the point with your comment about mothers being more attached because they went through "pregnancy, delivery, hormones, [and] breastfeeding."  Adopted children attach to their mothers and fathers just as well as their non-adopted counterparts.  So if that's the case, then I don't see how your argument for a stronger mother-child bond is strengthened by the argument that it's natural.

-Brian

http://onthefly.wordpress.com

January 4, 2007 1:43 PM
 

Strollerderby said:

Ok so we know sometimes dads get a bum wrap. We've heard them take note of their minority status in the

February 20, 2007 12:09 PM

in

GROUP BLOGS

  • Strollerderby

    The smartest, funniest, most exhaustive parenting blog in the blogosphere.
  • Droolicious

    Modern design for modern parents.
  • FameCrawler

    Your daily baby celebrity fix.
back to blog homepage