Lisa Solod wants young women to understand that feminism is about much more than just sex.
My mother married my father because, she told me in a rare moment of candor, she wanted to have sex with him. She was 25 and tired of pre-sex fumbling and stolen kisses. My father was, of course, far more experienced, having been in the Pacific Theater during World War II; far less discreet about his former life (and life in general) he told his daughters inappropriate tales of the women he had met on shore leave. One I particularly remember had her front teeth filed into points. Well into their marriage, each of them managed to be unfaithful and they finally separated (but not because of infidelity) after twenty years of marriage. Yet, for another dozen years or so they would hook up here and there, travel together, and, of course have sex. In a further revelation, my mother told me that the sex was the best part of her relationship with my father.
I came of age at the tail end but the real beginning of the sexual revolution (1971-1974). At that point, sexual liberation was inextricably tied to the rise of feminism. Having sex like men, i.e., without attachment, was part of our freedom. But too many of us got hurt. We hadn’t yet factored in the biology of mating and how really hard it was to have that much sex without any real commitment. Most of the women I know who grew up during those years had far more sexual encounters than they were ever willing to reveal to their husbands. Those of us who divorced then dived back into the sexual market with the same abandon. I am not sure we were all the wiser. I hear STDs are on the rise in the over 50 group, which doesn’t surprise me. We all were pretty practiced in birth control but we took it into our own hands, with the pill and the diaphragm. This was pre-AIDS. Barrier methods were not our methods of choice then. They are not, apparently, our method now, either.
But those of us who grew up in the trenches of the sexual revolution know that feminism was about far more than women having the kind of meaningless sex with men that men had been having with us for eons. Feminism, which is still being parsed in the media as well as our own homes, still being debated and discussed and accepted and dismissed, was about being able to control (to the extent that anyone can) our work lives, our love lives, our lives as a whole. It was about being able to have a career, being paid equally well for that career, and making our own decisions about marriage and childbirth without having to merely capitulate to what society had set out for us. I, for one, was happy not to have to marry to have sex. I was thrilled to be able to go to college and think about a career without worrying that it might make me unmarriageable. I was ecstatic about the notion that I could make decisions for myself.
All those ideas I passed along to my daughter. But, of course, she had no need to wrestle with those notions as the women in my generation had. She lived in a society where (she thought) feminism was taken for granted. Women her age did not talk about marriage, either as an option or something to reject. They saw it as fact that women could do anything.
But sex still gets in the way. Even for young women who begin sentences with the phrase “I am not a feminist but… ”
Sex, for the women of my daughter’s generation, has too often meant the kind of pleasure that was once reserved for more intimate relationships. The statistics on young girls giving oral sex to boys, without expecting anything in return, sadden me. The still complicit willingness to be submissive to a boy’s desire isn’t what I had hoped would be a benefit of the sexual revolution. Even worse, perhaps, oral sex isn’t thought of as sex at all. Girls can keep their virginity intact while having the kind of sex it took me years to be comfortable with. Although the website feministing (in 2008) cited a survey that dismissed the media hype as just that, anecdotal evidence from talking with my daughter and her friends does imply that oral sex isn’t thought of as the “real” thing, no matter who is doing it to whom. And that boys are more often than not the recipients.
It is apparent the submissiveness of women during the sexual act is still the stuff of a lot of fantasies. And the subject of two recent New York Times editorials. (One by Maureen Dowd.) Why else would E.L. James’ sloppily written trilogy about a submissive college student have taken off as a bestseller and been sold to the movies for $5 million? (Sex, even badly written, sells. At least The Story of O was well crafted.). Why else would Girls, a new television show, concentrate on exploring the sort of soulless coupling that has the goal, according to the article, of having sex and feeling nothing? Frank Bruni, the writer of the story about Girls uses the word “post-feminist.”
Well, pardon me Frank, but we are no more a post-feminist society than we are a post-racial one. The goals of feminism have yet to be reached. But if there is still a lot going on in feminism right now, too much of it centers around sex. It’s no wonder, of course: with the draconian birth control laws some Republicans wish to re-instate, the insane attempt to repeal abortion freedom that has captured the airwaves, the overwhelming wish by too many men (yes, it is mostly all men) to slide women backwards is extremely troubling. But those things have to do with much more than sex, even if it seems that sexual supression is the goal.
In 2010 in a Harper’s magazine article that should have received far more notice than it did, feminist icon Susan Faludi wrote extensively about the mother/daughter divide in feminism and how young feminists were tired of being grateful to the older women who had paved the way. Faludi, in what could be called a eulogy to the feminist movement, wrote:
“The nineteenth -century feminist dream of ‘the empire of the mother,’ which gave way first to the hope that ‘sisterhood was powerful’ and then to the hokum of ‘girl power,’ now faces displacement from an even more infantile transgressiveness (‘the brave new world of Gaga girliness’), a cosmetic revolt that has less in common with feminism than with 1920s flapperism. It posits a world where pseudo-rebellions are mounted but never won nor desired to be won, where ‘liberation’ begins and ends with wordplay and pop-culture pastiche and fishnet stockings and where all needs can be met by the bountiful commercial breast, the markeplace’s simulacrum of the mother.”
Televisions shows about women being casually sexual and pornographic novels being optioned for the movies fall in line: they are the big news. That’s unfortunate.
Faludi decries the shedding of feminist history. I lament both that and the divisiveness that still marks the movement (which Ariel Levy wrote so movingly about in The New Yorker in 2009). But more than that, I wonder when it all came down to sex.
I applaud the Slut Walks and the way young women wish to take back their right to dress as they please without being attacked (the law has been far too behind on this notion). I applaud the idea that women can be sexual beings outside of marriage; that they don’t have to be afraid of their own sexuality as my mother was afraid of hers. I even applaud the right to have meaningless sex if one so chooses. All of those things can be ultimate gains for women, but not if those gains costs her her soul, not if sex becomes the only fight worth marching for.
Just because the Republicans have made women all about sex doesn’t mean we have to accept their view of us. We need birth control and abortion rights; we definitely need to have control over our own bodies (the advent of birth control has made it possible for women to work, to make money, to be successful ) but we also need to remember that what we didn’t fight for was the right to behave as badly as men. While it is no mystery that the popularity of sexual submissiveness goes hand in hand with a rise in power (there is no shortage of important men who are happy to play the sexual submissive), let’s not forget to make sure we keep our power in the first place. Keep it, fight for it, hold on to it. Make sure that power is about more than sex. And let’s not trade our power in the world for a lack of it in the bedroom.
Feminism isn’t just about sexual liberation. It isn’t just about making choices about who to sleep with and when and even why. We need to be mindful of the fact that the sexual act can still do great damage, both physically and psychically. Liberation doesn’t give us the right to do ourselves damage, although I suppose it does give us the privilege. But what liberation should do now and forever is to give us the responsibility to be our best and most honest selves in all ways, in and out of the the bedroom. Frank Bruni is right to worry about depersonalization. If it starts in the bedroom it may well spill over into the rest of life. And that would be neither feminist nor post-feminist. It would be incredibly self-destructive.
Photo: AP/Josh Reynolds
About Lisa Solod
@Transhuman … Although I am against abortion, I see what you’re saying and in theory it’s right on but unfortunately will never happen simply because of the “It’s my body.” The unborn is not seen as a separate entity.
How about we have the women who abort fill out a form that asks if the father of the unborn agrees with the abortion much knows about the abortion? Let’s start compiling stats on the fathers role in all of this?
Are you saying that abortion should require the father’s consent, IE that he should be signing off on the procedure, or just that we should be gathering data on this? If the former, I think that that is sadly impractical. In most cases the father’s right to be involved in the decision is obvious, but what if the woman is seeking the abortion because she fears some reprisal from the father over the pregnancy, or has been raped? Honestly, I think this is an issue where we can, as the slogan goes, ‘trust women’ – I think healthy relationships, unlike the above examples, where the father’s right to be concerned is legitimate and obvious would be self-policing.
@ Alex
“what if the woman is seeking the abortion because she fears some reprisal from the father over the pregnancy, or has been raped?”
I’ve heard this argument before. It’s based on the flawed belief that women are the ultimate ethical beings and would never act in their own self interest or be vindictive towards a man. We can’t enforce a father’s visitation rights because what I she’s keeping the children away from him because he’s abusive. The 14 year old shouldn’t have to tell her parents because what if their abusive. What if they’re not? I guess that’s just not relevant to feminist discourse.
Pro choice activists have a strong argument for abortion rights, bodily autonomy. Abortion opponents have a strong argument for banning abortion, bodily autonomy of the fetus. What is the difference in humanity between a child who is born and the day before the child is born? If we can’t tell when humanity starts, were do we err, inconveniencing a woman for 9 months or killing a person? If sex selective abortions are wrong and can be banned, a woman’s reason impacts the legitimacy of the choice. If she has to have a valid reason for an abortion, can she assert bodily autonomy? She either has the right to choose sex selective abortions or she jas no right to choose.
Fathers should have the right to unilateral adoptions. They should be allowed to put a child up for adoption without the consent of the mother as women now have the right to do without the consent of the father. In this case, I think mothers (and fathers) should be first in line to adopt their own kids. This would be equivalent to the “legal abortion” that many men’s rights activists support.
**”Fathers should have the right to unilateral adoptions. They should be allowed to put a child up for adoption without the consent of the mother as women now have the right to do without the consent of the father.”**
This is untrue. Federal adoption laws require the agreement of both biological parents in all adoption situations. A biological father can stop any adoption from occurring just by refusing to sign the papers. There are occasionally cases where a woman has not informed the father and gone through with the adoption in secret; if the father finds out later and objects, the adoption is reversed on the basis of fraud, and the biological father is awarded custody. There have been cases where men have reclaimed their children even 5 years after a fraudulent adoption. Federal adoption laws treat biological fathers with equal importance and if a father doesn’t want his child given up for adoption then no adoption takes place.
As for “bodily autonomy”…. I have no problem with men being allowed an equal say in abortion as long as the technology is available to remove the fetus from the woman’s body and implant it in his. The argument of “my body, my choice” is valid because a fetus has no bodily autonomy; otherwise it wouldn’t need to live in another body. Perhaps medical science could bring the abortion argument to a screeching halt if they could find a way to implant the fetus in the father so he could serve as his own incubator. Until then; forcing a woman to serve as a “brood mare” for some other person’s ambition effectively ignores her “bodily autonomy” and disregards her humanity.
“The argument of “my body, my choice” is valid”
That is an incomplete thought and hence faulty logic.
The complete logical thought is “Her body, her choice, her RESPONSIBILITY”, unless the man chooses, voluntarily to take on some responsiblity as well. If she can unilaterally decide whether to give birth or not, she must be made to accept the responsiblity for HER choice.
“The complete logical thought is “Her body, her choice, her RESPONSIBILITY”, unless the man chooses, voluntarily to take on some responsibility as well. If she can unilaterally decide whether to give birth or not, she must be made to accept the responsibility for HER choice.”
@ Eric, I agree. The current laws on child support are lopsided and punitive and require total revamping. The biology (and the burden) is on women… as long as choice is available.
But you must realize that choice is not exactly something all American women have depending on where they live. In many states and rural areas, access to abortion has effectively been blocked, particularly to the poor. (look up TRAP laws, HR 3, and the large number of restrictive and invasive laws that work to shut down clinics or make access nearly impossible.)
Unless women have access to choice in reality (rather than “in theory”), we are in a situation where the decision to carry a pregnancy to term is only a choice to some; but not to others. And what about those that are effectively blocked from legal abortion? The choice must be realistically obtainable or it is not a choice at all. Should those women bear all of the responsibility when terminating the pregnancy was not an obtainable option? Could we possibly revamp the child support laws in a way that takes a woman’s reasonable access to abortion (and therefore ability to choose) into account?
UglyGirl,
“Could we possibly revamp the child support laws in a way that takes a woman’s reasonable access to abortion (and therefore ability to choose) into account?”
OK, but I doubt there will be many situaitons where that is the case.
Between 1.2 and 1.3 million abortions are performed in the United States each year. 40% of unplanned pregnancies are terminated by abortion, according to the #1 abortion advocacy organizatoin and authority in abortion statistics, the Guttmacher Institute. GI is truly pro-abortion; so, they are unlikely to inflate the numbers as a pro-life group might be tempted to do.
The point is, abortion is common, plentiful, and obviously widely available and practiced. There is scant evidence that women are “effectively blocked from legal abortion.”
Nick, mostly’s suggestion was to have the man accompany and assist her to get the abortion. IOW, if it would be incumbent upon him to share equally in financing it. So, in the rare circumstance where it is truly hard to come by, he would be available and expected to assist.
Looking at this the other way, where abortion IS available, men should and must also have a choice.
“This is untrue. Federal adoption laws require the agreement of both biological parents in all adoption situations.”
The sticking point is, he has to be recognized as the father before he is capable of blocking the adoption, and in far too many states, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to become recognized as the father if 1: you are not already married to the mother, 2: don’t have the mother co-operation (say, because she wants to adopt away the child and knows the father wants to keep it). Let me ask you, I know of at least one state where, in order for an unmarried man to be recognized as the father, he must actually bring the child into his home… How is a man supposed to do that without the mothers consent and co-operation. If the mother says he’s not the father, he has no way to prove he is, to get access to the child, to meet the standard required to get the proof needed to get access to the child…
“A biological father can stop any adoption from occurring just by refusing to sign the papers.”
Wrong, only if a father is named on the birth certificate is his signature required on any adoption. Are you suggesting that a woman is not capable of leaving out that information? That a woman can not have a baby without naming a father? If a fathers name is not on the birth certificate (an easy enough thing to omit, regrettably), his signature is not required. Furthermore, if he is not recognized as the father in the state the adoption is occurring, he can’t even block it.
“The sticking point is, he has to be recognized as the father before he is capable of blocking the adoption, and in far too many states, it is very difficult”
Adoption laws and state paternity recognition laws are not the same thing. Adoption laws are entirely different from paternity recognition laws. A man does not have to “be recognized as the father” in adoption proceedings. State paternity laws require ONE father be officially recognized; but adoption laws can have any number of “potential fathers” approve the adoption petition. If any one of those “potential fathers” objects, the adoption procedure is put on hold until the paternity of the objecting “potential father” is catagorically disproven. Apples and oranges are being compared here.
“I know of at least one state where, in order for an unmarried man to be recognized as the father, he must actually bring the child into his home”
Exactly which state is this? So you’re telling me, that if an unmarried woman in this particular state gives birth to a child and wants to sue the father for child support he won’t be held legally responsible if he refuses to bring the child into his home? I just don’t believe that! I’ll need to see some evidence.
“only if a father is named on the birth certificate is his signature required on any adoption.”
Birth certificates have nothing to do with adoption laws. When a couple adopts a child they are issued a birth certificate with the adoptive parents names one it. Biological parents are not named on an adopted child’s birth certificate. Again, in adoption there does not have to be just one officially recognized father; there can be several— none of which are named on a birth certificate. If any one of those “potential fathers” refuses to sign the papers the adoption cannot proceed. The burden is then on the mother to prove who is NOT the father; the “potential father” does not have to prove anything.
“Are you suggesting that a woman is not capable of leaving out that information? That a woman can not have a baby without naming a father?”
Yes, this has happened. And adoptions have been reversed because of it. Even in cases where adoption has taken place out of the state of residence of the father. Full Faith and Credit laws require the state residence of the adoptive parents to defer to the rulings and laws of the natural parent’s state residence. The notorious case of Baby Jessica comes to mind here. Jessica’s natural mother did not tell the father she was pregnant and when he found out he challenged the adoption the in state of Michigan (his residence). Michigan reversed the adoption and awarded him custody of his daughter. Although the adoptive parents lived in Iowa, the state of Iowa recognized Michigan’s reversal and Jessica was returned across state lines to her natural father.
Understand, I don’t think this is a bad thing. I think children should remain with their biological parents if at all possible. And if a father is willing and capable of caring for his child, then the best interests of the child is to stay with the father. I fully support the prevention or reversal of any and all adoptions that will or have occurred without the full informed consent of the father.
“Adoption laws and state paternity recognition laws are not the same thing.”
That’s a little dishonest. though in gathering evidence, I need to correct myself. You are right, in that a father’s consent is needed for adoption. That said, there are a number of methods of terminating a fathers rights, and thereby, need for his consent, and they are all VERY easy. Utah is particularly bad about this, which is why many mothers will run to that state to adopt out their child, confident that no father can stop them.
“Exactly which state is this?”
California is just one example:
http://laws.adoption.com/statutes/california-laws,5.html
A man is presumed to be the natural father of a child if he meets the conditions provided in Chapter 1 (commencing with § 7540) or Chapter 3 (commencing with § 7570) of Part 2 or any of the following:
…(list of various options involving marrying the mother)
He receives the child into his home and openly holds out the child as his natural child.”
Here is an example of it in action:
http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/112524214.html
“”California law states that if the father fails to behave like a father during the pregnancy, his consent is not needed.”"
I also pointed you to Missouri’s new bill (see comment bellow), which makes it pretty easy to terminate a father’s rights, given he is required to do five things to show he has developed a “consistent and substantial relationship with the child”, of which 3 of them require the to be born, and for him to have paternity recognized and custody granted, and the remaining two require the mothers co-operation (as one can not provide “consistent” financial support for medical costs if one is 1: not informed of those costs or activities 2: has their money rejected. Note, it does not require attempts to provide, but actual “consistent” financial support. If the mother is choosing to have those costs payed by adoptive parents instead of him, he is incappable of meeting these requirements and his consent is not needed, by LAW. Women are complaining they are having their reproductive rights infringed upon because taxpayers aren’t being forced to pay their birth control pills, but here we have laws going into effect that make cutting fathers rights out a cake walk, and not a peep from feminist “Equality” groups.
“So you’re telling me, that if an unmarried woman in this particular state gives birth to a child and wants to sue the father for child support he won’t be held legally responsible if he refuses to bring the child into his home?”
Just as you pointed out that adoption and paternity law are different and seperate, I could easily point to the same fact about paternity and child support. But I will actually elaborate. There are many states that will continue to enforce child support on men who have never had a relationship with a child, when that child, through DNA evidence, is shown not to be his, for the simple fact that he didn’t get tested soon enough. There are some states that will go after whomever the mother names as father, going so far as chasing after a boy who would have been 12 at the time of conception, because they didn’t bother to do any research, just took the name and went with it.
But generally, there are different rules for asserting paternity for men seeking paternity vs women seeking child support, because the government makes money off child support, and so has a reason to make that easy. Equality under the law and all that jazz.
“Birth certificates have nothing to do with adoption laws. When a couple adopts a child they are issued a birth certificate with the adoptive parents names one it. ”
Are you seriously going to pretend that the original birth cirtificate (or some documentation proving the child was abandoned) is required to begin an adoption? You’re playing stupid here, and I don’t appreciate it. The new birth cirtificate that is written up AFTER an adoption is complete has absolutely no bearing on allowing the adoption to begin. How can you honestly try to make that connection? Are you suggesting any person can walk into an adoption agency with a baby and not need to provide any kind of identification for the baby, and themselves, to prove they have a legal right to put that child up for adoption?
“Yes, this has happened. And adoptions have been reversed because of it. ”
I asked for examples. You have insisted on the same, I don’t see why you feel entitled to insist on proof, but don’t feel compelled to provide any yourself.
“I fully support the prevention or reversal of any and all adoptions that will or have occurred without the full informed consent of the father.”
If only that came through. But when you say “Federal adoption laws require the agreement of both biological parents in all adoption situations. A biological father can stop any adoption from occurring just by refusing to sign the papers” without any recognition of just how untrue that is, and how easy it is to circuvent the nuggets of truth that exist (as Missouri just made perfectly clear), you demonstrate a desire to keep your head in the sand. Laws exist that say men aren’t aloud to rape women, and women can’t be paid less than a man for the same job (both without exception), yet I hear every day about how that’s not good enough because it’s still happening, because it’s not being enforced properly, or to feminist satisfaction… Yet here we have LAWS that actually allow for discrimination, promote it, and you would have us ignore that because of what the law says, before examining it’s exceptions?
Unfortunately even feminist seem to regard abortion as a trivial thing. I have known several women that have had abortions that were very tramatized by them. I have never known any of them not to be painfully aware of what they had done and felt guilt about it. In fact one of the women started dating me after I approached her in an understanding way, being me I couldn’t help notice the pain in her eyes. So I smiled and said,”Its never an easy thing to do.” We talked for several hours.
Doc Love
(aka James W. Love, M.Ed.)
The guilt issue depends a lot on culture and norms & value of society a woman lives in. In American society, which is extremely conservative I can very well imagine that women are sent on a guilt trip.
In societies where people have different concepts, women don’t need to feel guilty because it is not implied that they did a terrible thing.
I’m from Holland where abortion is legal and women are not sent on a guilt trip. Whereas here, in rural America my obgyn outright told me that I couldn’t be his patient if I ever had an abortion….
I hope you were able to get a different OB-Gyn; and a female at that. Its predjudices like that that make me refuse to have a male doctor when possible. I hope to go back to the clinic I used to use soon. Lately I’ve had to use a free clinic that has only a retired male doctor that has tried to force dangerous drugs on me several times; I have a weird liver that makes me very conservative about what drugs I use. Hey two TYLENOL® can kill me if my liver is on a down turn!
I have to say that it was seriously hilarious to read criticism of “prejudice” to justify a refusal to see any and all male doctors, prejudging the entire male gender.
Thanks for the laugh.
LOL Eric, I was thinking the same thing. clearly, men and male doctors are all pro-life and women and female doctors are all pro-choice and this line never ever blurs.
@ Uglygirl
“If any one of those “potential fathers” objects, the adoption procedure is put on hold until the paternity of the objecting “potential father” is catagorically disproven”
Doesn’t require consent. They just need to get it through without the father objecting. He can’t object if he doesn’t know. That is the point we’re trying to make.
” There are occasionally cases where a woman has not informed the father and gone through with the adoption in secret;”
You just contradicted yourself. You said the fathers signature was required… If his signature is required, how can she do it without him knowing? Easy answer is, you’re wrong.
“if the father finds out later and objects, the adoption is reversed on the basis of fraud, and the biological father is awarded custody.”
You’re welcome to show me example cases where this has happened. I doubt you’ll find them. And for every one you do, I’ll find two that show the opposite.
“There have been cases where men have reclaimed their children even 5 years after a fraudulent adoption.”
Please. Seriously, please, provide examples. Because “best interests of the child” will ALWAYS dictate, that far into a childs life, that staying with the adoptive parents and (at best) granting the father visitation (and child support obligations) are what’s best.
“Federal adoption laws treat biological fathers with equal importance and if a father doesn’t want his child given up for adoption then no adoption takes place.”
Saying it doesn’t make it true. It also ignores the many loopholes created to ensure fathers are easily cut out of the process, such as in Missouri , where they just passed a bill making it THAT MUCH HARDER for a father to be recognized in order to stop an adoption:
http://universitycity.patch.com/articles/when-should-a-father-s-rights-be-terminated
“You just contradicted yourself. You said the fathers signature was required… If his signature is required, how can she do it without him knowing? Easy answer is, you’re wrong.”
The operative word there is “secret”. There have been cases where a woman has lied about who the father was, and the wrong man signed the papers. In cases where the mother has slept with several men, all of the “potential fathers” sign the papers, if one “potential father” objects, the adoption procedure is put on hold until he is proven NOT to be the father. In cases where the mother has said she does not know who or where the father is public notifications of impending adoption are required before the father can be ruled as “absent/uninterested”. In these cases, legal adoption does not take place for 3 months after the child is born (even though the potential adoptive parents usually have custody, they are considered “foster parents” until the adoption is finalized.)
**You’re welcome to show me example cases where this has happened. I doubt you’ll find them. And for every one you do, I’ll find two that show the opposite.**
The incredibly public cases of Baby Jessica (2 and 1/2 years old) and Baby Richard (4 yrs old) come to mind.
Here are a few more examples for you;
http://www.parentdish.com/2010/09/28/adoptive-parents-ordered-to-surrender-3-year-old-to-biological-f/
http://www.adoptivefamiliescircle.com/groups/topic/2_Year-Old_Girl_Returned_to_Biological_Father/
http://www.laurachristianson.com/laura/what-happens-when-birth-parents-want-their-child-back/
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695237163/Biological-father-sends-letter-asks-for-baby.html
http://www.adopting.org/uniform.html
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19950130&slug=2102254
And these are just the ones that made the news because the children were several years old. If a biological father challenges the adoption before it takes place… there is no adoption (hence no reason to make the news.) This happens with such regularity that most reputable agencies will not proceed with an adoption where there is no natural father to sign. (which is where the private adoption lawyers and “baby brokers” come in… but don’t get me started on them!)
**Please. Seriously, please, provide examples. Because “best interests of the child” will ALWAYS dictate, that far into a childs life, that staying with the adoptive parents and (at best) granting the father visitation (and child support obligations) are what’s best**
Baby Richard was 4, Baby Jessica was 2 1/2, Baby Grayson was 3, all of these children had their adoptions reversed, and were awarded to their natural fathers. It’s not about the “best interests of the child” it’s about fraud. Any honest adoption lawyer will tell you that if a natural father was not notified of the impending adoption, the adoption is considered fraudulent. Fraudulent contracts cannot be enforced.
“Saying it doesn’t make it true. It also ignores the many loopholes created to ensure fathers are easily cut out of the process, such as in Missouri , where they just passed a bill making it THAT MUCH HARDER for a father to be recognized in order to stop an adoption:”
Florida tried to enforce a similar law. The Florida courts have continued to reverse terminated paternity rulings (and in effect reversing the adoptions that occurred because of that), and eventually gutted the Putitive Father’s Registry. Its since been ruled unconstitutional.
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2007/sc07-738.pdf
I expect (and certainly hope) that Missouri’s law will suffer the same consequences.
The LAWS that govern adoption treat the wishes of the natural fathers as equal to the wishes of the natural mothers. The LAW does everything it can to ensure fathers are not easily cut out of the process.
Of course, the law can’t take every individual’s behavior into account. Women who decieve, lie or hide their decisions can manage to subvert the law. But the case I’m making here is that women cannot legally make a unilateral choice of adoption. And if she chooses to decieve or lie, fathers have legal recourse to regain custody of their children. As well they should.
I find the idea of a “Putitive Father’s Registry” absolutely disturbing because there is a much more insipid reason to put laws in place that make it easier to terminate father’s rights. And that reason is $$$$. The adoption industry is a multi-billion dollar a year industry (yes… industry) that is less about providing a needy infant with a home and more about providing childless,rich, white folks with an infant. Babies must change hands before money can change hands. It is in the best interest of the industry to speed adoptions and insure natural parents have no recourse. Putting a Putitive Father’s Registy in place to speed adoption is just a way of increasing the industry’s profits.
I fully support the ability of a father to stop or reverse an adoption if he wishes to raise the child; and I’m opposed to any laws that make it more difficult for natural father’s to have an equal voice in what happens to their kids.
@ Uglygirl
Your examples
http://www.parentdish.com/2010/09/28/adoptive-parents-ordered-to-surrender-3-year-old-to-biological-f/
“Grayson’s biological mother tells ABC News she lost contact with Wyrembek early in her pregnancy, and wasn’t required by law to provide his contact information to the adoption agency. Court documents confirm that the biological mother and her husband — the legal father — filed the necessary papers to surrender custody of the child within weeks of his birth.”
Doesn’t seem like the law protects father’s rights.
” Seventeen months later, after genetic testing confirmed Wyrembek as Grayson’s biological father, and before the adoption could be finalized, an Ohio court ruled that the Vaughns had filed their adoption petition prematurely — since paternity had not yet been determined — and awarded custody to Wyrembek.”
The adoption was not overturned as it wasn’t finalized and it took 17 months, but he challenged it 30 days after the child was born. Why and how did the adoptive parents fight it for three years, because they jnew that if they retained custody long enough, they court could rule on the best interests of the child. It took over a year after proving paternity for him to get his non-adopted child. The courts really treat fathers fairly, right..
” However, within 30 days of his birth, Wyrembek, registered with the Putative Father Registry in Ohio, affirming that he might be the boy’s father. Wyrembek then filed a suit to establish parental rights in December 2007, just weeks before the Vaughns filed for adoption, according to court documents.”
http://www.adoptivefamiliescircle.com/groups/topic/2_Year-Old_Girl_Returned_to_Biological_Father/
“She began on a 20 hour car trip to Oklahoma, to live with her her biological father, who had relinquished his rights at the time of the child’s birth.”
” When Veronica was 4 months old, the biological father began to legally fight for his paternal rights back. He joined the Cherokee Nation, who used the Indian Child Welfare Act, a 1978 law designed to preserve Native American families, as their argument for him to retain parental rights. ”
The dad actually agreed to the adoption and changed his mind. Not what we are talking about. A legal kidnapping by the father is just as bad as by the mother. The mother was offered an open adoption. Why are men not offered the same thing? It might stop women from skirtinbg the law.
http://www.laurachristianson.com/laura/what-happens-when-birth-parents-want-their-child-back/
” The birth mother supported the adoption until it appeared the court might grant the birth father’s request for custody. In late December 2004, the birth mother was awarded custody (she lives in Illinois, is married to someone else and has an infant daughter) and the birth father was given liberal visitation rights. The adoptive parents appealed the ruling but the court took no action, so today, the little boy went to live with his biological mother.”
The birth father lost custody to the birth mother, who didn’t want the child, she just didn’t want the father to have her.
” The second case mirrors the first one: a birth mother made an adoption plan and placed her son with a Colorado couple when he was 3 days old. The boy is now 21 months old. Somewhere along the line (I don’t have the details but I assume it must have been fairly soon after the boy was born), the birthmother changed her mind and won rulings from judges in Missouri (her home state) and Colorado that her son be returned to her. The Colorado Supreme Court intervened and said that a District judge needed to decide what was in the “best interests” of the child in determining custody.
Wonder of wonders, the birth mother and adoptive parents agreed privately that the boy’s adoptive parents should continue their role as parents and his birth mother will move to Colorado to be near him and involved in critical decisions as he grows up. “He has three people who absolutely love him so much that they’d be willing to do anything,” said the boy’s biological mother.”
This involves a mother undeciding on an adoption and settling for an open one. Again, why aren’t men just offered the option?
So are you in favour of responsibility and financial abortion for men?
@ Uglygirl
“This is untrue. Federal adoption laws require the agreement of both biological parents in all adoption situations. A biological father can stop any adoption from occurring just by refusing to sign the papers.”
Why do you think there is a putative father’s registry? It is for men , who believe they may have fathered a child to retain parental rights in the event that a mother were to put a child up for adoption without the consent of the father. How does this happen? Usually vecause the woman claims that she doesn’t know who the father is. Why does it work? Because courts won’t force a woman to raise a child she doesn’t want. From the website:
How does the Putative Father Registry work?
After a father registers with the Putative Father Registry, the court will make sure he is notified if the child should be the subject of a pending adoption. When the father receives the “notice of pending adoption,” he can then appear before the court in the adoption to provide information about the child’s best interests.
To protect my rights, when do I have to register?
You may register with the Putative Father Registry before or after the birth of the child. But in order to receive notice of pending adoption, you must first register no later then 30 days after the birth of the child.
But registering with Putative Father Registry is only one step in protecting a father’s rights. Fathers who register with the Putative Father Registry must also begin legal proceedings to establish paternity within 30 days of registering.
http://www.putativefather.org/faq.aspx
“There have been cases where men have reclaimed their children even 5 years after a fraudulent adoption.”
Notice that if he does not register within 30 days, he doesn’t have the right to contest the adoption. If he doesn’t prove paternity within 30 days he can’t contest the adoption even if he signed the birth certificate. I haven’t found any exceptions for if the mother can’t be found within 30 days. This also does not protect his rights to the child, it only allows him to provide testimony on the child’s best interests.
” he can then appear before the court in the adoption to provide information about the child’s best interests”
Do mothers normally need to provide a reason why they should be allowed to parent their child? The courts don’t treat mothers and fathers the same.
“There are occasionally cases where a woman has not informed the father and gone through with the adoption in secret; if the father finds out later and objects, the adoption is reversed on the basis of fraud,”
Untrue, the father still needs to argue that it is in the best interests of the child for him to receive custody. It becomes increasingly difficult the longer the child is with the adoptive parents. Many times the father must settle for visitation, but I’ve heard that of instances where he was also forced to pay child support. He gets a worse deal than a woman who agrees to an open adoption.
@ Uglygirl
I think the best way to sum up the adoption laws in the U.S. is this. If the rights of the father were truly protected, establishing paternity would be required before a child can be adopted. A father’s consent would be required before a child can be adopted. Even you’re not arguing that this is the case. Since this is not the case, why is it so? There is an assumption made by the courts that if a father wanted to parent his child, he would have some involvement with the mother during pregnancy. I’ve had discussions about this with feminists before and they have all to this point supported that line of reasoning. My position was that if a man has no say in a pregnancy, why does he have obligation to the mother to support her pregnancy? If he has obligations to the child after birth simply be being the child’s father, why then would he not have rights to the child after birth simply by being the child’s father? They never answer the question.
There is also the concern that the mother may not know who the father is or does not know how to contact him. The courts have fed into the societal bias that women should not be held responsible for their decisions. Granted, it may not be the wisest thing to have a parent raise a child they don’t want, but this shouldn’t eliminate the mother’s financial responsibility to the child. In cases like these, a woman could sign an avadavat stating that she doesn’t know who the father is and can’t contact him . It would be a criminal offense, not civil fraud for lying and she should be required to pay child support to the adoptive parents. In this case, it should be illegal for her to receive any type of financial benefit whether cash, airplane tickets, hotel accommodations, etc. for the adoption.
Since paternity does not need to be established and a father’s consent isn’t always required, the laws allow women to unilaterally adopt out their child. Men should have the same opportunity. I think that mothers should be first in line to adopt the child.
What is also amazing about the courts decisions (here in Canada) , they have stated time and time again that when a person is at a biological disadvantage they must be given greater right NOT less rights. These case though have all been about women who are (were) at a biological disadvantage in cases such as physical fitness tests etc. YET, they seem to say to men who in fact are at a biological disadvantage that oh well, too bad, that is what nature gave you, deal with it.
http://www.canadiancrc.com/newspaper_articles/Globe_and_Mail_Father_loses_custody_guardians_30JAN07.aspx
Here is a really good example of this.