Father’s Rights and Violence Against Women
by Dr. Michael Flood
In this talk, I’m going to focus on the ‘fathers’ rights’ movement, and their impact on violence against women.
Introduction: The fathers’ rights movement
The fathers’ rights movement is defined by the claim that fathers are deprived of their ‘rights’ and subjected to systematic discrimination as men and fathers, in a system biased towards women and dominated by feminists. Fathers’ rights groups overlap with men’s rights groups and both represent an organised backlash to feminism. Fathers’ rights and men’s rights groups can be seen as the anti-feminist wing of the men’s movement, the network of men’s groups and organisations mobilised on gender issues (Flood, 1998).
Two experiences bring most men (and women) to the fathers’ rights movement. The first is deeply painful marriage breakups and custody battles. Fathers’ rights groups are characterised by anger and blame directed at ex-partners and the ‘system’ that has deprived men or fathers of their ‘rights’, and such themes are relatively common among men who have undergone separation and divorce. The second experience is non-resident fathers’ dissatisfaction with loss of contact with their children or with regimes of child support.
The fathers’ rights movement focuses on trying to re-establish fathers’ authority and control over their children’s and ex-partners’ lives, on gaining an equality concerned with fathers’ ‘rights’ and status rather than the actual care of children, and on winding back legal and cultural changes which have lessened gender inequalities.
Fathers’ rights groups are well-organised advocates for changes in family law, and vocal opponents of feminist perspectives and achievements on interpersonal violence.
Impact of the fathers’ rights movement on violence against women
The fathers’ rights movement has had four forms of impact on violence against women.
Priviledging contact over safety
Most importantly, the fathers’ rights movement has influenced family law, with damaging consequences for women, children, and indeed men. Above all, fathers’ contact with children has been privileged, over children’s safety from violence. [See The Custody Scam, the story of Dawn Axsom, Child Abuse: When Family Courts Get it Wrong, Letter to Judge from Jury foreman regarding prosecution of mother trying to protect her children from abusive father, or watch the PBS documentary Breaking The Silence; Children’s Stories at the bottom of this post.–Deborrah]
An uncritical assumption that children’s contact with both parents is necessary now pervades the courts and the media. The Family Court’s new principle of the ‘right to contact’ is overriding its principle of the right to ‘safety from violence’. The Court now is more likely to make interim orders for children’s unsupervised contact in cases involving domestic violence or child abuse, to use hand-over arrangements rather than suspend contact until trial, and to make orders for joint residence where there is a high level of conflict between the separated parents and one parent strongly objects to shared residence.
The fathers’ rights movement has been unsuccessful in achieving its key goal of a rebuttable presumption of children’s joint residence after separation. However, other changes in family law and government policy over the last two years have reflected its influence. Recent reforms mean that greater numbers of parents who are the victims of violence will be subject to further violence and harassment by abusive ex-partners, while children will face a greater requirement to have contact with abusive or violent parents.
Current government policy echoes many of the key themes of the fathers’ rights movement. Both government policy and many fathers’ rights groups are guided by two central, and mistaken, assumptions: that all children see contact with both parents as in their best interests in every case, and that a violent father is better than no father at all (DVIRC, 2005, pp. 5-6). Both bodies talk of ‘conflict’ rather than violence, neglect violence as a legitimate issue for the courts and family services to address, emphasise mediation and counseling as solutions, and focus on punishing women for making false allegations or breaching contact orders.
Discrediting victims
The second impact the fathers’ rights movement has had on violence against women is in discrediting victims. Fathers’ rights groups tell two key lies.
First, fathers’ rights groups tell the lie that women routinely make false accusations of child abuse to gain advantage in family law proceedings and to arbitrarily deny their ex-partners’ access to the children.
Second, fathers’ rights groups tell the lie that women routinely make up allegations of domestic violence to gain advantage in family law cases and use protection orders to remove men from their homes or deny contact with children rather than out of any real experience or fear of violence.
I have written detailed critiques of these first two lies, and they are available both online and in the latest issue of the Australian journal Women Against Violence. I can send copies to anyone who wishes.
Men’s versus women’s violence (Impact on perceptions of intimate violence)
Related to this, the fathers’ rights movement also has had some impact on public perceptions of intimate violence. In particular, it tells the lie that domestic violence is gender-equal or gender-neutral – that men and women assault each other at equal rates and with equal effects.
While I’ve called this a lie, this is one claim for which there is some academic support.
To support the claim that domestic violence is gender-symmetrical, advocates draw almost exclusively on studies using a measurement tool called the Conflict Tactics Scale. The CTS situates domestic violence within the context of “family conflict”. It asks one partner in a relationship whether, in the last year, they or their spouse have ever committed any of a range of violent acts. CTS studies generally find gender symmetries in the use of violence in relationships. There are three problems with the use made of such studies by fathers’ rights activists.
First, men’s rights and fathers’ rights groups make only selective use of this data, as CTS authors themselves reject efforts to argue that women’s violence against men is as common or as harmful as men’s violence against women (Kimmel 2001, p. 22).
Second, there are methodological problems with the Conflict Tactics Scale. The CTS is widely criticized for not gathering information about the intensity, context, consequences or meaning of the action. The CTS ignores who initiates the violence (when women are more likely to use violence in self-defense), assumes that violence is used expressively (e.g. in anger) and not instrumentally (to ‘do’ power or control), omits violent acts such as sexual abuse, stalking and intimate homicide, ignores the history of violence in the relationship, neglects the question of who is injured, relies on only one partner’s reports despite poor interspousal reliability, and omits incidents after separation and divorce, which is a time of increased danger for women.
Third, a wide range of other data find marked gender asymmetries in domestic violence. For example, crime victimization studies based on large-scale aggregate data, household and crime surveys, police statistics, and hospital data all show that men assault their partners and ex-partners at rates several times the rate at which women assault theirs and that female victims greatly outnumber male victims (Tjaden & Thoennes 2000, pp. 25-26).
Feminist and other scholars have worked to reconcile the conflicting findings of these bodies of data. One important insight is the recognition of different patterns of violent behaviour in couples and relationships. Some heterosexual relationships suffer from occasional outbursts of violence by either husbands or wives during conflicts, what some (Johnson 1995, 284-285) call “common couple violence”.
Here, the violence is relatively minor, both partners practise it, it is expressive in meaning, it tends not to escalate over time, and injuries are rare. In situations of “patriarchal terrorism” on the other hand, one partner (usually the man) uses violence and other controlling tactics to assert or restore power and authority. The violence is more severe, it is asymmetrical, it is instrumental in meaning, it tends to escalate, and injuries are more likely.
CTS studies are only a weak measure of levels of minor ‘expressive’ violence in conflicts among heterosexual couples. They are poorer again as a measure of ‘instrumental’ violence, in which one partner uses violence and other tactics to assert power and authority (Johnson 1995, 284–285).
There is no doubt that men are the victims of domestic violence. Men experience domestic violence at the hands of female and male sexual partners, ex-partners, and other family members.
A growing body of research tells us that there are important contrasts in women’s and men’s experiences of domestic violence. Women are far more likely than men to be subjected to frequent, prolonged, and extreme violence, to sustain injuries, to fear for their lives, and to be sexually assaulted (Kimmel 2001, 19; Bagshaw et al. 2000). Men subjected to domestic violence by women rarely experience post-separation violence and have more financial and social independence. Female perpetrators of domestic violence are less likely and less able than male perpetrators to use nonphysical tactics to maintain control over their partners (Swan & Snow 2002, 291-292).
Women’s physical violence towards intimate male partners is often in self-defense (DeKeseredy et al. 1997; Hamberger et al. 1994; Swan & Snow 2002, 301; Muelleman & Burgess 1998, 866). On the other hand, women’s intimate violence can also be motivated by efforts to show anger, a desire for attention, retaliation for emotional hurt, and so on (Hamberger et al. 1994). It is inadequate to explain women’s violence simply in terms of their own oppression and powerlessness, and naïve to assume that women are immune from using violence to gain or maintain power in relationships (Russo 2001, 16-19).
Men are likely to under-estimate and under-report their subjection to domestic violence by women (George 1994, 149; Stockdale 1998, 63). There is no evidence however that male victims are more likely to under-report than female victims. In fact, men tend to over-estimate their partner’s violence and under-estimate their own, while women do the reverse (Kimmel 2001, 10-11).
The fathers’ rights movement’s attention to domestic violence against men is not motivated by a genuine concern for male victimisation, but by political agendas concerning family law, child custody and divorce (Kaye & Tolmie 1998, pp. 53-57). This is evident in two ways.
First, the fathers’ rights movement focuses on this violence when the great majority of the violence inflicted on men is not by female partners or ex-partners but by other men. Australian crime victimisation surveys find that less than one percent of violent incidents among men is by partners or ex-partners, compared to one-third of incidents among women (Ferrante et al. 1996, 104). Boys and men are most at risk of physical harm from other boys and men.
Second, the fathers rights’ movement seeks to erode the protections available to victims of domestic violence and to bolster the rights and freedoms of alleged perpetrators, and this harms female and male victims of domestic violence alike. I turn to this now.
Protecting perpetrators and undermining supports for victims
The fourth way in which the fathers’ rights movement has had an impact on violence against women is in its efforts to modify responses to the victims and perpetrators of violence.
The fathers’ rights movement has sought to wind back the protections afforded to the fictitious ‘victims’ of violence and to introduce legal penalties for their dishonest and malicious behavior. The Lone Fathers’ Association and other groups argue that claims of violence or abuse should be made on oath, they should require police or hospital records, and people making allegations which are not then substantiated, and those who’ve helped them, should be subject to criminal prosecution. They call for similar limitations to do with protection orders.
Fathers’ rights groups also attempt to undermine the ways in which domestic violence is treated as criminal behavior. They emphasise the need to keep the family together, call for the greater use of mediation and counseling, and reject pro-arrest policies.
Such changes would represent a profound erosion of the protections and legal redress available to the victims of violence and the ease with which they and their advocates can seek justice. This agenda betrays the fact that the concern for male victims of domestic violence often professed by fathers’ rights groups is rhetorical rather than real. While such groups purport to advocate on behalf of male victims of domestic violence, they seek to undermine the policies and services that would protect and gain justice for these same men.
Fathers’ rights groups often respond to issues of domestic and sexual violence from the point of view of the perpetrator. And they respond in the same way as actual male perpetrators: they minimise and deny the extent of this violence, blame the victim, and explain the violence as a mutual or reciprocal process (Hearn, 1996, p. 105).
This sympathy for perpetrators is evident in other ways too. Fathers’ rights advocates have expressed sympathy or justification for men who use violence against women and children in the context of family law proceedings. And, ironically, they use men’s violence to demonstrate how victimised men are by the family law system (Kaye & Tolmie, 1998a, pp. 57-58).
Members of fathers’ rights groups also act as direct advocates for alleged perpetrators of violence against women. For example, one group distributes pamphlets for ‘victims of a false AVO’, giving no attention to how to respond to ‘true’ perpetrators of violence nor to the safety of family members.
Fathers’ rights groups also attack media and community campaigns focused on men’s violence against women, call for the de-funding and abolition of what they call the “domestic violence industry”, and engage in the harassment of community sector and women’s organisations which respond to the victims of violence.
Other, positive responses by men: The White Ribbon Campaign
This is all pretty depressing news. In this context, I’ve been especially heartened to see a growing positive response by men, in alliance with women, to help stop violence against women. I will focus on one such response.
White Ribbon Day is the largest effort by men across the world, working in partnership with women, to end men’s violence against women. White ribbons are worn on the day by men to show their concern about violence against women, and by women who are supporting men. It takes place on November 25th, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.
In Australia, White Ribbon Day is organised in part by UNIFEM, a women’s organisation, but it is conducted in partnership with men and men’s organisations. The White Ribbon Campaign focuses on the positive roles that men can play in helping to stop violence against women.
To find out more, visit the website: http://www.whiteribbonday.org.au/
Conclusion
To continue our efforts to prevent violence, several strategies are necessary.
We must continue to respond effectively to those who’ve experienced this violence, the coalface work that some of you already do.
We must continue to keep the issue of violence against women on the public agenda.
We must step up efforts to engage men in positive ways, building partnerships with supportive men and men’s groups. We must confront, or sidestep, the dangerous ambitions and dishonest claims of the men’s and fathers’ rights backlash.
The achievements of the father’s rights movement are already putting women, children and indeed men at greater risk of violence and abuse. The fathers’ rights movement has exacerbated our culture’s systematic silencing and blaming of victims of violence and hampered efforts to respond effectively to the victims and perpetrators of violence.
However, the new politics of fatherhood has not been entirely captured by the fathers’ rights movement. There is potential to foster men’s positive and non-violent involvement in parenting and families. Key resources for realising the progressive potential of contemporary fatherhood politics include the widespread imagery of the nurturing father, community intolerance for violence against women, growing policy interest in addressing divisions of labour in child care and domestic work, and men’s own investments in positive parenting.
However, thwarting the fathers’ rights movement’s backlash requires that we directly confront the movement’s agenda, disseminate critiques of its false accusations, and respond in constructive and accountable ways to the fathers (and mothers) undergoing separation and divorce (Flood, 2004, pp 274-278).
Beating the backlash
The following are some of the political strategies we can use to help beat the fathers’ rights backlash.
Discredit fathers’ rights groups. Emphasise that they;
- Are interested only in reducing their financial obligations to their children;
- Are interested only in extending or regaining power and authority over ex-partners and children.
- Do nothing to increase men’s actual share of childcare / parenting or men’s positive involvement in parenting both before and after separation.
- Collude with perpetrators of violence against women and children, protect and advocate for perpetrators, or are perpetrators.
- Produce critiques of their lies and their strategies which are credible and accessible.
- Co-opt the new politics of fatherhood;
- Support positive efforts to respond to separated fathers. (And emphasise that FR groups fix men in anger and blame, rather than helping them to heal.)
- Build on men’s desires to be involved (and nonviolent) parents.
- Find alternative male voices: supportive men and men’s / fathers’ networks and groups.
‘Speaking as a father…’
Tell women’s stories
Atrocity tales: Stories of abuse and inequality.
In letters, submissions, on talkback, etc.
(But beware of the ways in which these can (a) portray women only as victims, (b) homogenise and essentialise women’s (diverse) experiences of violence, and (c) undermine credibility and support. )
Find and nurture male allies: in government, the community sector, academic, etc.
More widely, we must continue do the work of violence prevention: to undermine the beliefs and values which support violence, challenge the power relations which sustain and are sustained by violence, and promote alternative constructions of gender and sexuality which foster non-violence and gender justice.
Contact the Author:
Dr Michael Flood
Postdoctoral Fellow
Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society (ARCSHS)
La Trobe University
E-mail: michael.flood[at]anu.edu.au
PO Box 4026, Ainslie ACT, 2602
Presentation in Panel, “Myths, Misconceptions, and the Men’s Movement”, at Conference, Refocusing Women’s Experiences of Violence, Sydney, 14-16 September.
Sign this petition to stop court ordered child abuse in your Congressional district!
Deborrah
Veteran social researcher, relationship advice columnist, author and radio host. Author of hundreds of articles on American and black culture, gender issues, singles, dating and relationships. Author of "Sucka Free Love!" , "The 24 Types of Suckas to Avoid," "The Black Church - Where Women Pray and Men Pray," and "Why Vegan is the New Black" all available on Amazon.Com. Her unique voice and insightful commentary have delighted fans and riled haters for 20 years. Read her stuff on SurvivingDating.Com and AskHeartBeat.Com.
Follow Me:
Category: Men's Issues
Sorry, the spacing on that last post didn’t work the way that I wanted.
Child abuse and neglect
2001-2006
Mother Only 1,452,099 – Mother and Other 222,836 – Mother total 1,674,935
Father Only 661,129 – Father and Other 37,836 – Father total 698,965
Child fatalities
2001-2006
Mother Only 1,704 – Mother and Other 565 – Mother total 2269
Father Only 859 – Father and Other 77 – Father total 936
Wow! So many interesting comments, I hardly know where to begin.
GetALifeDickwad says:
“My bad for the language. My vocab is colorful”
No problem Dick (may I call you Dick for short?)
Deborrah says:
“Your ONE report conflicts with hundreds that point to MEN as being the perpetrators of violence against women and children worldwide.”
Oh, you want more? Okay.
Daveisnothereman says:
“Statistics from the 90s?? ”
Sorry, you want more current? Okay.
Data from U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services “Child Maltreatment” reports, 2001-2006
Victims by Parental Status of Perpetrators
Child abuse and neglect Child fatalities
2001-2006 2001-2006
Mother Only 1,452,099 1,704
Mother and Other 222,836 565
Mother total 1,674,935 2269
Father Only 661,129 859
Father and Other 37,836 77
Father total 698,965 936
@Beven
Man you are one weird dude. You wrote:
“Anyway, what is this need for wimin to push out children to solve your problems? Its a very base mammal need I suppose, and men have a similar view of their own genitals, but if men use their own genitals to avoid their problems, its generally only themselves who get hurt.”
Anyway what is this need for men to engage in bareback sex thus impregnating women who then pushes out the child. If men are so concerned with how the kids will be treated, then they need to make a decision with where they choose to deposit their sperm. Don’t deposit it in a fertile woman thus potentially making a baby. Then you dont’ have to worry about what a woman might or might not do with a baby. Men are solely responsible for where they deposit their sperm. It should be in a condom. Then regardless of what a woman says or does, men don’t have to worry about Father’s rights, women using ‘their kids to solve their problems or any of that other stuff you brought up.
Instead of asking why women push out babies to solve their problems, ask yourself why men choose to engage in bareback sex in the first place and potentially make a baby and then turn around a blame a woman for conceiving? It takes 2 you know.
And BTW, men use their genitals all the time to abuse women and make themselves feel better! And they hurt far more than just themselves!! Just check out rape and molestation stats. Men rape women, boys, girls, kids! They use their genitals to do it.
@Krigsman.inc
LOL at these men drawn to the power of the woman! LOL. They claim to not like what the women post but they can’t resist reading it. If you don’t like it just don’t take the time to sign into the board to read it much less comment. You’ve just given me the satisfaction of knowing that you’ve read my posts. Yeah me!! You just can’t resist the very women you claim to despise.
@Beven
“I suppose like many of the wimin who use this site to vent”
“Learn how to write and spell. Are you deliberately mispelling the word “women” “clamboring” is that a word”? I can post if I want to , you don’t have to read it or comment on it. Who cares what you think. This isn’t your site. Attempting to be contemptuous, invalidate and be dismisive of the women who post here by calling their posts ‘rants’ doesn’t make it so. I can call your post the same thing ‘Rant”
If you don’t like these so called ‘Rant’s why do you make a point to log onto this site, read them and post comments? Why not just pass it on by?
“Bevin wrote:
“I suppose like many of the wimin who use this site to vent, you must have had some negative life experiances which have left you somewhat broken. Has this left you all with the feeling of inadequacy about your gender? ”
And stop with the pseudo psychobabble. You don’t know me and I would run a mile from you. Most people (men and women) get involved in relationships sometimes they work out sometimes they don’t. That’s life. It doesnt’ mean people have to flip off into the deep end. I don’t know anyone who has not been involved in some sort of disappointing relationship on some level. Real life relationships are not the fairy tale that Hollywood portrays them to be. There is no ‘happily ever after’ Life happens and it goes with the territory of dating and getting involved with people, you win some and lose some. That’s what dating and relationships are all about, people meeting others trying them on for a fit and if it works out great, if not next. Plenty of men and women in the sea.
So you FAIL in that regard trying to size me up. I’m far from some emotionally broken down woman Ha! I can get a man any day of the week and twice on Sunday if I wanted. LOL. (But I’m content with the man I have).
Why is it men in their arrogance have to assume that when a woman speaks out about the injustices they suffer at the hands of men, these women have to be emotionally broken down/bitter/saddened singing the blues or they are feminist? I guess it suits men’s ego to label women who speak up for themselves, who call them on their crap who ‘peep it’ because this goes towards what is being said all along. Men and their almighty egos and pride. They can’t take it when a woman speaks out. It goes against the grain. They’d rather the woman shut up and let the man run things.
I also happen to know for a fact that there are great men out there just not on this site so far. Not all are crazed and like the men who are posting on this site appear to be based on their posts. I’ve had the good fortune to be acquainted with quite a few stellar men who are family members, friends, acquaintences, work colleagues, and significant other. None of them come even close to being like the personalities represented by the men on this post. Uggh!
I do agree with some of your points though Raz, like compulsory sterilization for both genders. I’ve had a number of female friends become pregnant because it distracted them from the problems they themselves created in their own life. And since the original problems were never resolved, the relationships broke down & now the mothers hate the fathers for not “being supportive enough” LOL!
Anyway, what is this need for wimin to push out children to solve your problems? Its a very base mammal need I suppose, and men have a similar view of their own genitals, but if men use their own genitals to avoid their problems, its generally only themselves who get hurt. But if a womin use their genitals and drag a child into the situation to avoid their own problems, the poor child has their rights trampled over because of the “mother” cannot solve her own problems.
I think the rights of a child should trump the rights of the mother or FATHER any day. Too many children are suffering at the hands of parents who cannot sort their own lives out themselves.
Raz, wow, you must have had a fair bit of spare time to come up with those rants. I suppose like many of the wimin who use this site to vent, you must have had some negative life experiances which have left you somewhat broken. Has this left you all with the feeling of inadequacy about your gender?
What I really notice from many of the rants on this site is the dependency on emotive vitriol to get any point across. Much of the time its unfocused hate speech, with a flimsy excuse of “Men are responsible for “. I can assure you, if I was to use the language you have used to describe men, but about wimin, you all would be clambering to use what I have just said to justify your belief that men are bad. Hypocrites much?
Personally I think that upon birth people should be sterilized (They can figure out some sort of way to invent a reversible sterilization process that is effective in both men and women).
Then in order for them to have it reversed they need to pass certain benchmarks.
1. college educated with at least a BS degree
2. Obtain a Job making an income that shows they can support the children they wish to have and have been on that job for at least a year.
3. Show where they have contributed to society at large through charitable acts and community service consistently (contribute volunteer so many hours untiil they attain xxx # of community servicce hours
4. Attend parenting classes, obtain a certificate upon completion of parenting training. Write down a plan of action they have in place for becoming a parent
5. Attend social skills and human relationship classes.
6. Take a battery of test which show their mental and physical health. (Do we need more cracked brain and diseased kids in this world taking up resources in our already overstretched planet coming from parents with the stupid muthafuka gene?
7. Sign a waiver/release that should they create an offspring, they will forfeit x amount of their income AND Time AND attention for the next 18 to 21 years of the offspring’s life
Only then can they be allowed to be de-sterilized and the government can give out a one time monetary bonus for those parents who reach all the benchmarks. Like money towards a home or fully funding college for their kids (and if the kids make the grades, fully funding the college of the parent’s choice, or something along those lines. Haha, the human race would come to a standstill.
Concerned Citizen
“My quote referred to how many women are able to leave bad marriages in the U. S. because they are economically able to do so. In countries where women have less economic autonomy divorce rates are lower – because women can’t afford to leave bad marriages. When many women began to gain economic autonomy in the U. S., angry and controlling men – like the kinds you find in the father’s and men’s rights movements – petitioned and lobbied for laws that would enable them to regain control of their wives, i.e., making it harder and more painful for them to leave their marriages”
I thought this is what you meant but this isn’t what you wrote in your part of your earlier post. Thanks for clarifying and I agree with you on this point.
@Concerned Citizen
Wrote
“It’s a mistake for welfare reform to demand child support from an unmarried man simply because he impregnated the mother. That’s not a father. That’s a sperm donor. If he acted in the capacity of father for those children and they and the mother see him that way, that of course is a different issue. Rather than rely on child support, help single poor mothers earn a living wage so that they are able to provide for their children on their own”
There is no ‘simply because he impregnated the woman about it’. If an unmarried man impregnates a woman then he pays it’s as simple as that. If unmarried men don’t impregnate a woman then they don’t have to worry about paying. You may not think this is right or fair but that is the way it is so get over it.
I don’t like it when my insurance premium goes up “simply” because I have to pay for others on the same insurance plan as me who smoke and do other things that cause them to not be healthy. But the insurance company has to raise the cost of the premiums so everybody on that plan can get health care. It’s not a perfect system but that’s what we have so far, and without it, costs would spiral even more out of control than what we have now. Insurance companies spread the cost/risk among everyone on their plan so all can have benefits. I don’t like it but that’s the way it is so I have to get over it.
Taking away child support because you think is how it should be for men who ‘simply impregnate a woman’ (love how you have such a dismissive tone in how you state that), would provide further burden on mothers who may need that check to help supplement their income and to provide support for their kids. Not having it would make it even harder on children who are living below poverty line and don’t have much in the way of money. I see women all the time get aid from the government so there are programs already in place in addition to father’s paying child support which is supposed to provide for the children’s welfare. Aid for dependent children, wic, food stamps medicaid etc..
My tax dollars in all of my paycheck goes toward govt. run social programs. The last thing we need is yet another social program. And why aren’t you advocating for these men to take classes and learn how to be men instead of males ‘simply impregnating women’? Why aren’t you advocating for men to learn to take responsibility and be fathers? Why is it the mothers have to be the ones always in these programs you mentioned? I volunteered for a grant run welfare to work program and not one man attended any of those classes. They were all attended by single mothers living in the project. Where were the men? Oh I know, “simply impregnating the women” (rolls eyes). Now you want to reward them for doing this by making it possible for them to drop seed and walk away without any financial repercussions. I don’t think so.
When you absolve men who ‘simply impregnate women’ from the responsibility of paying guess what will happen… The pregnancy rate will go even higher than it ever has. Men can have bareback sex without repercussion without penality. They don’t have to worry about paying a dime for that baby. Social programs for the low income already strapped for funding will sky rocket beyond anything we’ve seen previously as more women will apply for benefit. Meanwhile the man will continue to spread his seed far and wide because hey all he is doing is ‘simply impregnating women’. He’s not a father, he just impregnates so he doesn’t have to take responsibility for that, not even a financial one according to your thinking.
So your solution is bogus. Because it sends the message that it is OK for unmarried men to ‘simply impregnate women’ and walk away without any parental responsibility (which most of them already do) but this time they can also walk away without any financial responsibility. How is that teaching unmarried men to be responsible when they don’t even have to pay for the fruit of their loin?
You mean well but your ideals are not practical and certainly not realistic and it sets it up where the man is rewarded for ‘simply impregnating the woman’ while the woman has to raise the baby, take classes to be a better mother and do all this without receiving any money from the unmarried father who impregnated her. Nice try but I see through what you’re really slyly advocating here and it is not for the benefit of the woman involved..
Raz,
My quote referred to how many women are able to leave bad marriages in the U. S. because they are economically able to do so. In countries where women have less economic autonomy divorce rates are lower – because women can’t afford to leave bad marriages. When many women began to gain economic autonomy in the U. S., angry and controlling men – like the kinds you find in the father’s and men’s rights movements – petitioned and lobbied for laws that would enable them to regain control of their wives, i.e., making it harder and more painful for them to leave their marriages.
Raz you’ve seriously misinterpreted my comments. In no way am I blaming mothers for abusing children. I’m well aware of the reasons the mothers studied in govt. reports abuse and neglect their children. They are living at or below poverty in dangerous neighborhoods, have little social support in raising their children, get little if any support from the fathers of their children, may have substance abuse or alcohol problems, do not earn enough to adequately support themselves and their children, and other problems related to being poor rather than being single mothers. The govt. programs that have been proven to help them have been cut back for many years, yet “responsible” fatherhood programs that have never been proven to work continue to get funding. I’m all in favor of defunding those fatherhood programs in favor of providing more funding for poor moms to get their GEDs, college education, child care, and other things they need to help lift them out of poverty.
There is also a huge difference between a father and a sperm donor. I believe that single mothers are better off without any involvement from their children’s DNA donor because far too often he had not made any form of commitment to her or her children. I believe that helping these women to raise their children well on their own is the best way to go. It’s a mistake for welfare reform to demand child support from an unmarried man simply because he impregnated the mother. That’s not a father. That’s a sperm donor. If he acted in the capacity of father for those children and they and the mother see him that way, that of course is a different issue. Rather than rely on child support, help single poor mothers earn a living wage so that they are able to provide for their children on their own. The fatherhood programs are a failed social experiment that seeks to place a man as head of the household solely because he impregnated the mother, and that has to stop. Those programs have not been shown to work, but since they provide lots of govt. funding to various fatherhood and related organizations, they aren’t going away any time soon.
Concerned Citizen, you are quoting information out of context and this alone doesn’t give the full picture. Anyone can fling up stats and quote information.
“Mothers are more likely to neglect children while fathers are more likely to abuse them. Also, since mothers are most likely to be the primary caregivers of the children, there is more likelihood of them having opportunities to abuse and neglect their children. Mothers are held responsible for all abuse and neglect, even when perpetrated by a male in the household (failure to intervene).”
However what is the reason behind it. Mothers are more likely to ‘neglect children’ because… why? Could it be a single mother is working 2 jobs to support her family and she can’t be breadwinner, parent, and everything at once because the ‘father is out of the picture? You make it seem as though mothers deliberately neglect their kids just because they can. Many mothers have no choice in the matter. If fathers would step up to the plate and be active parents instead of sitting back grumbling and complaining and resenting the fact they they are fathers and they have to pay child support, perhaps mothers wouldn’t neglect t heir kids so much.
And just because mothers are the primary caregivers doesn’t mean they are ‘likely to abuse and neglect their kids either. That’s bogus. However when you cut and paste information like you have done without delving into the psychological/socialogical reasons of cause and effect you paint a skewed picture.
Most single mothers live below the poverty line and they are uneducated, they also lack proper parenting skills because they didn’t receive any. They parent based on what they know which isn’t much. Parenting is a ‘learned behavior’ and how many mothers and fathers for that matter pick up books to learn how to be good parents? Poor parents are less likely to read magazines like “Parent today’.
So you post all of these out of context statements up there to prove what? You can’t post that without looking at the entire picture. A single mother working 2 jobs tired and trying to be superwoman will most likely lash out at her kid who is crying when her feet hurt and she just needs 5 minutes of rest. This is by far not the same as some punk azz Father’s rights movement who come from a vindictive controlling, domineering and vengeful standpoint where they angry and they want to hit back at the mother and often use the child to do this.
The courts shouldn’t have to get involved for a father to do right by his kid. A single mother who is tired and struggling would most likely welcome the father stepping up to the plate and being DAD. A check doesn’t raise a kid. But most of these so called Father’s rather than just doing the right thing for their kid, they’re too busy creating strife with the mother because they are mad at her. She got their check and that’s all they can focus on. The courts should be a last resort.
Once that man is proven to be the father of that child 99% of the time, he gets angry and wants the mother to suffer and ultimately the child suffer. It doesn’t have to be like that. The father coudl voluntarily do what he needs to do by being actively involved in the child’s life in ALL aspects. Courts shouldn’t have to decide visitation rights, the parents involved should be able to come together and do that. But most times this isn’t the case. In a divorce, the man is mad as hell because the woman got half of his stuff so he is going to make things difficult for her and make her suffer and ultimately the kid suffers.
It is a vicious circle with both parents going after the other. “There was a movie about divorcing parents warring with each other and the kid is caught in the middle. It starred Drew Barrymore’ called Irreconcilable Differences who sues for divorce from both the parents and wants to live with the housekeeper and this was granted by the courts because the parents were tripping so caught up in getting vengeful with each other.
This whole Father’s rights movement is bogus. If Fathers want to do what is right, just do it already. No need to involve the court system.
All this back and forth posting stats, the bottom line is the kid suffers the most in the breakdown of a relationship. There are a lot of angry men who take their anger out on women who rejected them and on the kids. This is world wide, not just in the states. In the Middle East women are still stoned and hung (executed) for the least little infraction. They are declared guilty by men. There are a lot of men who want to see that middle eastern mindset imposed on women in the U.S.
Another thing, who is it convincing those kids to kill themselves in suicide bombing missions? Men!! When you think of cults in this country most of them were headed by Men!! Jim Jones, David Koresh, who was it that killed all those kids in Columbine. Those were angry teenaged boys whose parents embraced violence, shooting guns and militia like behavior.
Most if not all Militia in this country are headed by men.
Look at the news and see the cases where it was Men who kidnapped and molested young girls. That crazy man who kidnapped that girl and she had 2 kids by him starting at the age of 14. Uggh!!
Look at those men in the Morman sect…
So yeah, men want women under their thumb. If they had their way women would not have any rights, not vote, stay tied in the home barefoot and pregnant with no say so. Men would have the first and last word.
But what men don’t realize is that humans are not unlike the animal kingdom. Most animals who live in groups are female lead, with the males acting as loners. They protect the territory but without the female holding down things, the males would have nothing. There are a few exceptions but by and large with the big cats and other animals such as elephants, killer whales, Emperor penguins, it is the female that is important and without her males would be powerless.
Males have had females fooled for a long time. It’s brainwashing. Covering up. Men have been allowed to be out of the household and do what they want to do meanwhile keeping women subjugated, but that is changing now. Women are getting a taste of what men have enjoyed all along.
Up until the last 30 years, what rights did women have outside of the home? Men had the first and last say so. Now that is no longer the case and men are running scared. It’s a woman’s world out here now and men are just struggling to hang on!
LOL at Dave posting some 10 and 12 year old erroneous data Get outta here with that.
“Uh… actually, most child abuse and parental murder of children is committed by mothers, not fathers. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, Child Maltreatment 1997: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (Washington DC, :GPO, 1999). See: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/ncands97/s7.htm. Child abuse perpetrators are ”
Concerned citizen the latter part of your comment is confusing. Can you clarify what I’ve excerpted below?
“Since women in the U. S., for instance, are able to leave bad marriages because they are economically able to do so, they seek to control women in other ways, such as child custody (so-called “shared” parenting laws), disallowing moveaways, bogus “theories” such as parental alienation syndrome, “friendly” parent provisions, and other punitive treatment. Divorce “reform” is not about fairness or what is best for children. It’s about getting those damned women under a man’s control.”
Hey, Deborrah, you’re very right about why women file for most divorces these days. They refuse to put up with emotionally dissatisfying marriages and abuse. They weight the pros and cons, decide that there are many more cons, and leave.
The main reason they leave is that they are economically able to do so. In industrialized countries where women earn enough money to support themselves and their children you are more likely to see women leave bad marriages than women in countries where they do not have as much economic autonomy. That’s why you see so much divorce “reform” pushed by father’s rights types.
Since women in the U. S., for instance, are able to leave bad marriages because they are economically able to do so, they [men] seek to control women in other ways, such as child custody (so-called “shared” parenting laws), disallowing moveaways, bogus “theories” such as parental alienation syndrome, “friendly” parent provisions, and other punitive treatment.
Divorce “reform” is not about fairness or what is best for children. It’s about getting those damned women under a man’s control.
Here’s more on children suffering the most abuse and neglect in father-only homes:
“For example, under the Harm Standard of NIS-3 (see Chapter 4 for a definition of the Harm and Endangerment Standards), children in single-parent households were at a higher risk of physical abuse and all types of neglect than were children in other family structures. Children living with only their fathers were more likely to suffer the highest incidence rates of physical abuse and emotional and educational neglect. (See Figure 5.1.) Under the Endangerment Standard, higher incidence rates of physical and emotional neglect occurred among children living with only their fathers than among those living in other family structures. (See Figure 5.2.)”
Read more: Causes and Effects of Child Abuse – Some Contributing Factors To Child Abuse
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1388/Causes-Effects-Child-Abuse-SOME-CONTRIBUTING-FACTORS-CHILD-ABUSE.html