Mark Greene believes that freeing women from the domestic sphere while supporting men to enter that sphere is a win/win.
—
Recently, I was asked to write on the Father Rights movement for The New York Times. In my article titled Fathers’ Rights Needn’t Hurt Women’s Rights, I made the case that fully engaged divorced parents working in partnership to co-parent their kids is the best possible outcome for their children’s emotional well being. The bottom line here? Although our marriages may fail, our families needn’t fail as well.
We can choose to show our children that their families have not ended, just changed. And that will be central to their sense of security and safety. Part of encouraging vital co-parenting agreements will require giving men equal legal rights to remain engaged parents.
What is troubling however is how quickly any discussion of father’s rights or presumption of shared custody shifts to the issue of domestic violence. The Times also ran an article by Kelly Behre titled “The Movement Undermines Victims of Domestic Violence”. Behre states:
…even the more moderate groups within the fathers’ rights movement engage in a backlash against feminism when they attempt to discredit the experiences of female victims of intimate partner violence…
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
Let me just note here that anyone who attempts to discredit the experiences of female victims of intimate partner violence is in no way a moderate voice in the father’s rights movement.
Then during a follow up discussion titled The Men’s Rights Debate on the Stream over at Al Jazeera America, (scheduled to air on June 24) the question was asked, should equal custody be the baseline for divorce law and family courts in America? Again, it was suggested that this was problematic, especially in cases of abuse.
Pushing fathers out of their daily or weekly childcare role does irreparable damage to the children of divorce and hurts the long term goals of the women’s movement.
|
Let’s be absolutely clear here. Any parent, male or female, who emotionally or physically abuses their child or partner should not be given equal standing in a custody arrangement. But domestic abuse is by no means only being committed by men. The Center for Disease Control’s 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey states:
More than 1 in 3 women (35.6%) and more than 1 in 4 men (28.5%) in the United States have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime. Page 2, Key Findings.
Domestic partner abuse is a catastrophic national problem that affects families and communities. But to insist that domestic abuse is solely a male act is at best, ill-informed and at worst, intentionally deceptive. To acknowledge domestic violence against men does not diminish the injustices suffered by women. In fact, it gives men and women common cause to go forward together.
And again, let me be clear. Violence against women is a human rights tragedy throughout the world. I will be the first to assert that women overwhelmingly bear the brunt of violence, inflicted by sexist, misogynist men.
But in the sphere of intimate relationships in the US, the numbers become much less skewed. (35.6% for women, 28.5% for men.) Even if the numbers of men are somehow inflated in this study it is clear that women also physically abuse men in significant numbers.
The courts should take any form of domestic abuse very seriously. Any abuser, regardless of gender, forfeits his or her right to any assumption of custody. That said we must move beyond worst case scenarios when we talk about family law and divorce.
♦◊♦
As women already know, when you enter the domestic sphere, you must have adequate legal protections should your marriage fail. Men who enter the domestic sphere deserve the same legal protections.
|
Millions of fathers qualify as childcare providers to their children, either part or full time. Severing these relationships and pushing fathers out of their daily or weekly childcare role does irreparable damage to the children of divorce and hurts the long term goals of the women’s movement.
Freeing women from exclusively remaining in the domestic sphere while supporting men to enter that sphere is a win/win. More importantly, children of divorce need both of their parents in their lives, regardless of their gender. As women already know, when you enter the domestic sphere, you must have adequate legal protections should your marriage fail. Men who enter the domestic sphere deserve the same legal protections.
As do working fathers who are facing the prospect of divorce and want to co-parent their children.
Freeing women from being forced to remain in the domestic sphere while supporting men to enter that sphere is a win/win.
|
Divorcing couples need to look to collaborative divorce and mediation in the vast majority of cases where a history of emotional or physical abuse is not present. Culturally, we continue to stigmatize divorce, encouraging divorcing spouses to go legal and get the upper hand. Its time to stop pitting spouses against each other and instead teach them to partner and co-parent on behalf of their children.
We can choose to stop stigmatizing divorce as an symbol of abject failure, and view it as a change, in which a family does not end but instead transitions to a new arrangement. An arrangement which allows children to grow up cared for and loved.
Click here to like Mark Greene’s Facebook page.
—
It is important to note that the legal challenges faced by unmarried fathers are even more challenging than those confronted by divorcing dads. The legal hurdles for single fathers who want to raise their children took center stage in The New York Times and Al Jezeera discussions. Clare Huntington , Christopher Emanuel and Kevin Noble Maillard all wrote about the issue for The New York Times.
— Photo: Mateus Lunardi Dutra
Follow Mark Greene on Twitter:
Get a powerful collection of Mark Greene’s articles, in his book, REMAKING MANHOOD–Available now in print and on Kindle Reader for Windows, Macs, Android, iPhones and iPads
Remaking Manhood is a collection of Mark Greene’s most widely shared articles on American culture, relationships, family and parenting. It is a timely and balanced look at the issues at the heart of the modern masculinity movement. Mark’s articles on masculinity and manhood have received over 100,000 FB shares and 10 million page views. Get Remaking Manhood IN PRINT or on the free Kindle Reader app for any Mac, Windows or Android device here.
Read more by Mark Greene:
The Ugly and Violent Death of Gender Conformity
When “Check Your Male Privilege” Becomes a Bludgeon
Why Are Death Rates Rising for Middle Aged White Americans?
When Men Keep Demanding Sex From Their Partners Over and Over
How the Man Box Can Kill Our Sons Now or Decades from Now
Why Traditional Manhood is Killing Us
Why Do We Murder the Beautiful Friendships of Boys?
How America’s Culture of Shame is a Killer for Boys
The Culture of Shame: Men, Love, and Emotional Self-Amputation
The Man Box: Why Men Police and Punish Others
The Man Box: The Link Between Emotional Suppression and Male Violence
The Lack of Gentle Platonic Touch in Men’s Lives is a Killer
Touch Isolation: How Homophobia Has Robbed All Men of Touch
Boys and Self-Loathing: The Conversations That Never Took Place
The Dark Side of Women’s Requests of Progressive Men
—
Mark: you missed my point completely, I didn’t say it wouldn’t benefit women, only that it wouldn’t matter if it did or it didn’t. That fathers rights should be focused only on ‘does it benefit the children’. Except for feminist research, every study I have seen has said that presumed shared parenting is great for kids but feminists continue to say that it hurts mothers and therefore they fight against it. BTW, if I use your reasoning here the current system is Anti Father in fact greatly so because no one cares if it hurts him, only if it benefits… Read more »
Jatc,
“It wouldn’t matter if it did or it didn’t.” (benefit women) is a pretty strange thing to assert. Women’s valid and entirely welcome interests are a part of the father’s rights equation. There are a wide range of very good reasons for this, not the least of which is we can’t make babies without them.
How is it strange? Jatc is simply objecting to the notion that father’s and men’s rights should always be dependent or contingent upon their benefit to women or children in order to be valid. That notion suggests that father’s rights are only of secondary or derivative importance, and that women’s and children’s interests are always primary and paramount. I think it is good when the exercising of one’s rights can benefit and help other classes of people, but that is not always the case. At some point, we say that if something is a right, then you get to exercise… Read more »
Shouldn’t fathers rights be an end onto itself even if it doesn’t benefit women as long as it benefits the children.
There are many fathers rights groups around the world, they hold events fairly regularly, but I don’t recall any of the staff writers/editors covering those events, but when there is a womans event ala SLUTWALK, it is covered here. Rather ODD for a site that is supposed to be BY MEN < FOR MEN < ABOUT MEN.
Dear Jatc,
How can something that benefits children not benefit women? Typically, that would only occur in situations where the father is anti women. Which ultimately would damage the children as well. My article here, as well as my article for the New York Times, makes the case for father’s rights. What you are looking for is a father’s rights case that is also anti women.
I am sure that lots of men would economically benefit if they did not have to pay compulsory child support. Yet if they were not forced to pay child support, we are told that this would harm dependent children, and so we have these campaigns against “deadbeat dads” because we are told that the economic interest of children should trump in this case. If we can see how the benefits and interests of men and children conflict, then it should not be hard to see how the same can occur between women and children. Women and children are different individuals… Read more »
I’ve not heard of a fathers rights case thats anti-women. Not unless its labelled so by feminists who conflate anti-feminism = anti-women. That would be like telling someone who was anti-anarchy that they support fascism.
Jatc makes the point that things like SLUTWALK are openly anti-men, pushing hateful and deceitful ideologies and the notion that the default male setting is RAPE.
In the early 1900’s, one of the biggest arguments that people made against women gaining the right to vote was that women engaging in politics would leave men to raise children. The assumption was that men doing more of the childrearing would be a total disaster. The assumption that men are far worse parents than mothers is traditionally one of the biggest stereotypes used to hold women back. It insults men, but it also guilts women into limiting their options in life. People are still stuck in that mindset, and this will continue to hold back women and mistreat men… Read more »
I don’t care if father’s rights will help women’s rights or not. I do not support men and father’s rights because I want something back, but because men and fathers should receive support when needed, that is all. I do not need to have something in return when doing the right thing. Well, actually, I WILL receive something in return – the happiness I will feel for an even more equal society, the happiness for seeing the other gender’s issues being acknowledged, including my own family members and male friends. That is all that really matters. I know many men… Read more »
Each case should be taken on its own merits, beginning from the position that equal custody is likely to be in the best interests of the child and adjusting that model to the actual circumstances. Any history of domestic violence should of course skew the decision in the non-violent partners favour, whether the violent partner is male or female. I have had a violent partner, so has my Brother, he stuck to his marriage for much longer than he would have chosen because he knew that the courts would give the lions share of custody to his wife. Any suggestion… Read more »
Beautifully said, Meg. And a chilling story about your bother.
interesting, no women so far have responded….
Sometimes women are not that familiar with the issues being presented, so at least they shut up not to be that inconvenient.
I support “support.”
I was trying to decide whether I should respond to this article or not and what form that should take. When articles are good overall, should we really quibble over the details? I decided though to point out just a few things, which sometimes get lost in the conversation. There are fathers rights. There are women’s rights and there is what is right. I remember reading a comment on another thread on GMP that went something like both parents need to put aside their differences and put the children well being first. I completely agreed with that comment. When it… Read more »
An excellent suggestion on the support vs. encourage language. Done.
here here
Agreed. All too often support for fathers being in their children’s lives is seen as in and of itself as anti-woman/mother. I think this happens because there is a thought that helping women/mothers must come first and helping men/dads must come second, therefore any effort that goes directly to men/dads is seen as effort that should gone to women/mothers.
This is bad thinking.
@ Danny I disagree. Where that comes from is the societal belief that woman = good and men = bad. Mothers will always act to benefit their children and are selfless. That’s why proponents of this often use the phrase “women and children’s lobby”. They imply that what’s best for women is what’s best for children and if men are always bad and women are always good then who would you help? I read this article and the first few comments (comments sorted by newest first). All of the first 10 or so comments were critical of the women. None… Read more »
Women are wonderful effect + tender years doctrine makes for a harsh combo.
I respect your position John but after seeing responses to those who advocate for dads it seems that helping men (in nearly any capacity, not just parenting) is supposed to be conditional on how it affects women.
I beg to differ, Danny. I have seen many many supportive comments from women, who believe, as I do, that the empowerment of Fathers as co-parents is good for both men and women. I think it is important to get outside of the more divisive ideological bubbles that inevitably pit men against women in online discussions.
I’m not doubting what you and John have seen Mark. Only commenting on what I have seen.
I think something that could help with couple’s moving towards equal parental rights is by stating the custody agreement in the pre-nuptial agreement before they get married, while they are still in love and have no feelings of hurt, angry, and disappointment that arise from the divorce process which will skrew the fairness of that agreement.
Precedent in in the United States is that such agreements are completely non-binding. Judges are, for better or worse, to rule custody based on the “best interests of the child.” There is no possible legal way to decide how custody will be handled ahead of time.
Possible this is a a realistic option in other countries?