Many years ago, I encountered what
appeared at the time to be a group of reputable men.As a struggling
single motherin a fast-paced society, I found their call for a return to
simpler times and enduring relationships refreshing. I formed lasting friendships
with several of them, and some of those friendships have endured in spite
of the topic of which I write in this article.
When my child's father found a new wife
and family, he faded from her life and became little more than a weekly
paycheck in spite of pleas for him to remain more than a passive observer.
Ideas which had initially sounded quaint and old-fashioned began to hold
appeal as my child became sullen and withdrawn.
Grandfatherly in nature, one member in
particular took my little girl under his wing and helped fill the void
left by her father's inattention. She was the same age as his custodial
son, and their escapades were always full of fun and laughter. He taught
her to fish, build a campfire to roast marshmallows, kayak, canoe, sail,
and dig quahogs from the salt marshes of Cape Cod. He would pick up scraps
of wood left over from construction sites and help the kids build forts
in the bushes or carve model ships. He let her help paint the bottom of
his sailboat with barnacle paint, an experience that left her looking more
like "Blue the Dog" than a little girl, and cheerfully brushed
off her waste of the prohibitively expensive marine paint with the gentle
admonition "well, young lady, you'll never grow barnacles." He
was the person who encouraged me to leave the economically undervalued
human services field and become a lawyer. There was never anything inappropriate
about their relationship, nor was his interest in me ever more than that
of a kindly neighbor, mentor and friend. He was, in every way that mattered,
the definition of the proverbial father.
Non-custodial single fathers would often
bring their children to our Mentor's home. The children would play while
the men would disappear into the living room to discuss what was happening
in their divorce actions. Although not privy to the conversations which
occurred within the inner circle until the very end, to a non-lawyer their
erudite-sounding conversations about "due process" and "equal
protection" bore the imprimatur of legitimacy to a layperson who had
little experience with the legal system other than a brief, uncontested
divorce.
They were eager to show anyone who would
listen reams of documentation to back up their horror stories about injustice
they had suffered at the hands of the courts. Even the most callous listener
could not help but express moral indignation at ex-wives who used children
as pawns to gain an edge in a property settlement, greedy lawyers who milked
until they were broke then dropped them like hot potatoes, and mental health
professionals who would slant their testimony to trick the courts into
depriving fathers of the right to see their children. While telling their
tales, many fathers would break down and cry, unable to continue or answer
questions about their dilemma through their grief.
I was given ream after ream of depositions;
court transcripts; audiocassettes of sessions with therapists which conflicted
with the testimony the practitioner had given under oath in court; letters
from expert witnesses testifying to the bias in the court; books and treatises
written by researchers lambasting the "domestic violence industry;"
and psychological tests administered by sympathetic therapists which proved
the fathers were good, stable, law-abiding citizens. Because of my mental
health background working with emotionally disturbed adolescents, I gradually
became a sought-after commodity at meetings where they would discuss the
importance of having a father in a child's life.
Fathers often asked innocuous sounding
questions about how the MMPI and MCMI were structured. As they realized
my clinical training, which included extensive knowledge about these psychological
tests which often swayed judges, could help them gain an edge in their
litigation, fathers began to flock to me and ask questions about psychology.
I would recommend obscure books and scientific journals, which they would
immediately read, then enjoy discussing their emerging knowledge of psychology.
In retrospect, the extreme gratitude these
men expressed over such trivial recommendations should have been a warning
sign that something was amiss. However, at the time, I was flattered.
The second wife, new girlfriend, or
female sympathizer of the Father's Rights movement is a queen amongst a
retinue of attentive servants. No mountain is too great to move for
these men hungry for female approval. If you mention your car needs work,
you'll awaken to find a man in your driveway cheerfully changing your oil.
If your palace has a chip of paint peeling, you'll come home from work
to find a crew of vassals gleefully grinding the paint down to the bare
wood while a master of ceremonies presents you with palette of colors to
make your shabby adobe befitting for your royal presence. If you mention
you need to go home and vacuum, a butler will appear at your door with
a steam cleaner to shampoo your carpets while his servants delicately move
your furniture out of harms way. If you express admiration of a neighbors
flowering shrub, a handful of serfs will appear at your door to landscape
your entire yard with flowers, whistling while they work with dwarfish
good humor. If you accompany them anywhere public, you will be introduced
as aristocracy and hear a symphony of voices lauding your every accomplishment
with Herculean praise.
At least initially, the female advocate
is rarely sought after for purient reasons. Rather, she is placed upon
a pedestal and worshipped by the masses in an overwhelming display of gratitude
for her ability to sympathize with what would appear to be common sense
to most people. SHE doesn't hate men. SHE values fatherhood.
SHE believes in us. Every wish, every whim, every desire of the
female advocate is granted almost before it is given voice.
It seems inconceivable that these wonderful
men who can anticipate every desire end up divorced, deprived of the right
to see their children. It seems beyond belief that these thoughtful creatures
had ample evidence of wrongdoing by their ex-spouse, but an evil judiciary
refused to consider their evidence. You're not asked to work against women,
only those selfish creatures too evil to put their children's best interests
ahead of their greed. Under those circumstances, even the most hardened
cynic can become seduced by the siren's call of the Father's Rights movement.
It was these early, positive experiences
with the Father's Right's movement which colored all of my experiences
to come and makes the realization of the dark side behind the Father's
Right's movement difficult to reconcile. A mother will always gravitate
towards what is best for her child, and what was best for my child was
the positive male attention that caused her to gradually come out of her
shell and become a happy, well-adjusted young lady.
A former mental health professional, I
became firmly convinced of the worth of having a father figure in a child's
life. These experiences occurred over a period of many years before I had
reason to question the motives of the periphery of men who eternally buzzed
in and out of our Mentor's life. The bizarre, Kafkaesque events which occurred
and brought their true motives to light offend traditional sensibilities
about right, wrong, good, evil, and what is real. Even now, knowing what
I know about them and knowing I am inviting criticism by feminists, my
belief that children need positive male role models (although not necessarily
the biological father) remains unchanged.
Historical
Background of the Father's Rights Movement
During the height of the women's movement,
a laudable movement began by men sympathetic to the plight of feminism
to educate their peers about how women weren't the only victims of archaic
social roles. Men, they argued, were robbed of precious time with their
families, their health, and the very ability to feel by social conditioning
which told him a man's role in society was that of a breadwinner. Medical
practitioners acknowledged the link between stress and heart disease.
The rise of pop "self-help"
psychology furthered the men's movement, educating its' constituency through
myth and legend in stories such as "Iron John" and "Gods
in Every Man." Sweat Lodges (the male version of an encounter group)
grew in popularity as men learned to network amongst themselves, bond,
and discuss the formerly forbidden realm of the emotions. Men started entering
the delivery room with their wives when their children were born and cradled
their newborn progeny with pride as the physician severed the umbilical
cord from the mother's womb. As women began to work outside of the home,
however, some men responded to their newfound role as nurturer with ambiguity.
Not all men were thrilled with the women's
movement. Traditional man-as-breadwinner roles afforded less enlightened
males a dominant position in their families. Feminism, with all of its
trappings, seriously undermined a man's ability to dominate his family
and control his spouse as women demanded equal opportunities in education,
the workforce, and in the home. Women, no longer trapped in their dependent,
subservient roles as housewives and mothers, began to infiltrate the upper
echelons of power in politics and corporate America. Many women chose to
postpone marriage and child rearing until after completing their education
and gaining a certain amount of success in their careers. Successful, educated
women avoided men who desired to place them in a subservient role. Others
chose slower-paced "mommy-track" jobs until their children were
older, but demanded equality in the home.
"Men are very
confused, angry, and frustrated as they try to figure out what it means
today to be a man," says Dr. William Pollack, director of the
Center for Men at McLean Hospital in Belmont (Massachusetts).
"There aren't
a lot of structures in society that help men get a hold of it."
(Men with Promises to Keep, Mary Leonard, the Boston
Globe, September 21, 1997).
Men who failed to respond to a woman's
changing role as equals found themselves out in the street as frustrated
women gave up on unfulfilling marriages and filed for divorce. Most men
learned from their failures and went on to form successful relationships
with new partners, but others were too entrenched in their archaic social
roles to adapt to the needs of modern society.
The groups which call themselves "Father's
Right's" groups are not members of the legitimate men's movement.
These groups have nothing to do with associations (ranging from little
league to anti-child exploitation) consisting of fathers who have banded
together to protect children or encourage others to take an active part
in their lives. Rather, "Father's Right's" groups are a dangerous
movement which arose as a backlash against women's demands to be free from
domestic violence and unreasonable male domination in their daily lives.
The key word in discerning which groups are pursuing illegitimate objectives
is the use of the word "rights." They are an extremely vocal
minority which claims to represent the interests of fathers, but in reality
they are attempting to turn back the clock on women's rights and regain
their dominant role in society and the family.
Overwhelmingly, men join these groups
after a former intimate or spouse leaves them to escape physical abuse
or files for divorce. These groups, in reality "batterer's right's
groups", very quickly learned that an educated public had no tolerance
for their archaic views of a man's right to dominate his spouse through
domestic violence. Like a cancerous organism, these groups networked through
the internet and adapted by publicly identifying themselves with conservative
Republicans and latching onto the coattails of the legitimate men's movement.
Already accustomed to networking through the "ol' boy" network
in business, they began lobbying the statehouse and pulling elaborate publicity
stunts to get media attention.
Concealing the truth about their extensive
history of violent behavior towards their intimate partners and children,
numerous restraining order violations, and pending criminal charges for
beating, stalking, and harassing their victims, these men found the best
way to both control their ex-spouses and dupe the public into helping their
cause was to use their children as pawns and promote a false image of concerned
fatherhood. Using men who had, in reality, experienced unfairness during
the judicial process as "poster children" and pawns to arouse
sympathy for their own illegitimate cause with the populace and by aligning
themselves with conservative political factions, these men have attempted
to stamp their extremist activities with the imprimatur of legitimacy,
nor are they the average, good fathers which have built society.
The
Quest for Dominance and Control
"Abusive
men typically have deeply entrenched notions about "traditional"
male roles, with concomitant support for male dominance."
-- Lee H. Bowker, Beating
the Wife Beating, p. 7-9 (1983)
"Victims
[of domestic violence] are more likely... to have less traditional attitudes
regarding women's roles in the family."
-- Lenore Walker,
The Battered Woman Syndrome, p. 8, (1984)
The batterer's quest for control of the
woman lies at the heart of an abusive relationship. "The
men want to direct and determine how their partner behaves, and the way
to do this is through violence... the men use violence to dominate, control,
and force the woman to do what they want." (Jan
E. Stets, Domestic Violence and Control, p. 110, (1988).
Battering is about domination. Violence is a way of "doing power"
in a relationship, an effort by the batterer to control the woman who is
the recipient of the violence. "At the moment
of separation or attempted separation -- for many women the first encounter
with the authority of law -- the batterer's quest for control often becomes
most acutely violent and potentially lethal." (Desmond
Ellis, Post-Separation Woman Abuse: The Contribution of Lawyers as "Barracudas,"
"Advocates," and "Counsellors," 10 Intl. J.L. &
Psychiatry 403, 408 (1987). Lenore Walker, a leading forensic
psychologist in the field of battered women, has emphasized the batterer's
control of the woman. "A battered woman is a
woman who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological
behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to
do without any concern for her rights." (Lenore
Walker, The Battered Woman Syndrome (1984)). Walker found
that as her clients in psychotherapy became more assertive, they encountered
more physical and psychological abuse.
The misperception that men cannot control
their anger still permeates society. Abusive men will often use the threat
of violence, whether actual or implied, to control his victim. "Men
are violent and abusive towards women because this behavior allows them
to establish and to maintain control within the relationship ... and because
no one has ever required them to stop." (Lisa
G. Lerman, The Decontextualization of Domestic Violence, 83 J. Crim.
L. & Criminology 217, 236 (1992)). Abusive behavior can
range from implied threats ("any other man would have beaten you to
a pulp") to overt acts against property (breaking apart the furniture,
punching a hole in the wall) to direct physical assault (shoving, grabbing,
battery). The abuser constantly finds fault with the victim, forcing the
victim to remain constantly on the defensive, walking on eggshells lest
she "cause" her abuser to lose control and incur another incident
of violent behavior.
Studies indicate that, contrary to the
assertions of the abuser that he just "lost it," batterers are
quite aware of what they are doing. "Loss of
control is substantially contradicted by the batterers' own testimony.
While the men claim that their violence is beyond rational control, they
simultaneously acknowledge that the violence is deliberate and warranted."
(James Ptacek, Why do Men Batter Their Wives,
p. 153 (1985). Strongly indicative of this pattern of premeditation
are the facts that abusers often limit their beatings to places that will
not show (like the stomach), violent episodes occur almost exclusively
in the home where they can get away with it, and despite the abusers justifications
of "I just lost control," most batterers have limits beyond which
they will not go (most stop short of killing their partners). (Lenore
E. Walker, The Battered Woman Syndrome, (1984)). Abusers
are extremely manipulative and are often described as having a Jekyll and
Hyde Personality. Ellen Pence and Michael Paymar's training manual for
batterer's, Power and Control: Tactics of Men Who Batter, treat
violence as a form of control and explicitly reject theories that focus
on some flaw in the abuser, the victim, or the relationship. (Ellen
Pence & Michael Paymar, Power and Control: Tactics of Men Who Batter,
p. 64, (1986). Abusers view their right to dominate and
control every aspect of their partner's and children's lives, their right
to resort to physical violence, as a constitutionally protected right
sanctioned by the founding fathers and the bible, not aberrant behavior.
When the intimate partner of a domineering
male demands an end to controlling or abusive behavior or attempts to sever
the relationship, his abnormal behavior will often escalate into violence.
Separation assault is the attack on the woman's body and volition in which
her partner seeks to prevent her from leaving, retaliate for the separation,
or force her to return. It aims at overbearing her will as to where and
with whom she will live, and coercing her in order to enforce connection
in a relationship. It is an attempt to gain, retain, or regain power in
a relationship, or to punish the woman for ending the relationship. It
often takes place over time. (Martha R. Mahoney, Legal
Images of Battered Women: Redifining the Issue of Separation, 90 Mich.
L. Rev. 1, p. 65-66, (1991)).
Despite the obvious physical and psychological
harm caused by battering, the abuser is able to continue battering his
partner because he does not fear legal or social consequences. A batterer
often believes he has the right to control his partner through the
use of force. Reinforcement of learned behavior may encourage this obsessive,
dependent personality. Impulsive and easily frustrated, a batterer resorts
to physical violence. The batterer will deny his violence to himself and
others. A batterer is not violent in other relationships. In fact, with
people outside the family, he can be seen as the pillar of the community.
(Lisa N. Birmingham, Closing the Loophole: Vermont's
Legislative Response to Stalking, 18 Vt. L. Rev. 477, 484-485 (1994)).
This hinders the victim's attempts to seek help or emotional support from
friends and even her own family because batterers tend to wear a false
persona to the outside world. The victim's claims that her partner is out
of control tend to be met with disbelief and outright hostility from the
outside world.
Mom,
Country, and Apple Pie -- Why People Help Them
"There's
a sucker born every minute..."
-- W.C.
Fields
Our society was built upon the foundation
of the family. It is the backbone of our culture and the root of our identity.
Our founding fathers granted extensive fundamental rights to protect family
integrity, and it is a right our courts rigorously protect. It is these
noble characteristics which the Father's Rights movement has learned to
manipulate in their elaborate scheme to regain control of their victims
and turn the clock back on women's rights.
If you look at literature for the Father's
Rights movement, you will often see a picture of a father and child doing
something together. This image tugs at the heartstrings of all of us.
Emotional agitation is a favorite technique
of the propagandist because "any emotion may
be 'drained off' into any activity by skillful manipulation."
(Aaron Delwiche, Propaganda Analysis, (1995)).
If we were lucky enough to grow up with good fathers in our lives, it brings
back fond memories of our own fathers. If we had absent, dysfunctional,
or emotionally unavailable fathers, it inspires powerful emotions about
what we wish our own fathers had been like. "Transfer
is a device by which the propagandist carries over the authority, sanction,
and prestige of something we respect and revere to something he would have
us accept. Thus, we may accept something we otherwise might reject."
(Institute for Propaganda Analysis, 1938).
The reality of the Father's Rights advocates criminal history of spousal
abuse or child abuse is never mentioned, nor is the fact that he may have
voluntarily terminated visitation with his own children in a ploy to evade
paying child support.
The pairing of the Father's Rights movements
distasteful agenda with positive images of fatherhood causes us to transfer
paternalistic associations into whatever the Father's Rights group is saying
and stamps it with the imprimatur of credibility. As Americans, we believe
in fatherhood. Whether it is an image of our own fathers, the founding
fathers of our country, or God the Father, the Father's Rights movement
seeks to create a false connection between traditional notions of fatherhood
and legitimizing spousal abuse or failure to pay child support. Fatherhood
is good. Father knows what is best for his children. Father's shouldn't
be questioned. Fatherhood is America -- God, Country, and Apple
Pie.
"We believe
in, fight for, live by virtue words about which we have deep-set ideas.
Such words include civilization, Christianity, good, proper, right, democracy,
patriotism, motherhood, fatherhood, science, medicine, health and love."
(Aaron Delwiche, Propaganda Analysis (1995)).One
of the most deeply ingrained instincts all human beings possess is the
instinct to protect the young. Although all species possesses the instinct
to ensure the survival of the next generation, humans are one of the few
mammals (including wolves and dolphins) which will protect of the young
of others, not just their own. This instinct has ensured our survival and
enabled us to evolve into the complex social creatures we are today. Few
of us would blindly drive past an infant playing precariously close to
the street. Our perception of the child's danger will leave us greatly
distressed if we do not indulge the urge to stop and find the child's mother.
Only the most callous human being would
deny the plea of a frantic parent to help their child. As Americans, we
pride ourselves for protecting the weak and taking a stand against oppression,
especially when we think the recipient of the unfair treatment is a child.
Americans root for the underdog. The Father's Rights movement preys upon
the honor and fears of the American public by publishing horror stories
about evil government agencies, man-hating battered women's advocacy groups,
and vindictive ex-spouses snatching away their children in the middle of
the night.
Concealing the truth about physical abuse,
child abuse, controlling behavior and stalking they may have committed
from the public, Father's Rights advocates convince the public "it
could happen to you." Government agencies, domestic violence shelters,
and court-ordered visitation centers become part of "the domestic
violence industry" (conjuring up images of a callous, profit driven
corporation). A woman's documentation of abuse becomes a "cry wolf"
restraining order (creating and image of the little boy who cried wolf
when there really wasn't any). Enforcement of abuse prevention orders by
law enforcement personnel and courts becomes the "domestic violence
witchhunt" (conjuring up images of innocent people being burned at
the stake due to unfounded paranoia of the supernatural).
"By portraying
themselves as god-fearing, hard-working Americans like the rest of us,
they convince the public that they, and their ideas, are 'of the people.'
" (Aaron Delwiche, Propaganda Analysis,
(1995)). What makes the Father's Rights advocate's plea so compelling
is their claim that it is their children who are being hurt by these
phantasms. By playing on the audience's deep-seated fears, Father's Rights
advocates hope to redirect attention away from the merits of the particular
proposal they are advocating for and towards steps that can be taken to
reduce the fear. (Aaron Delwiche, Propaganda Analysis,
(1995)). Steps they may ask the audience to take might include
asking a member of the voting public to sign a petition seeking concessions
from Congress in child support laws, enticing an innocent bystander into
delivering a message to a stalking victim which she will find frightening,
conning an employee of a state agency into investigating false allegations
against the victim for the purposes of harassing her, or luring civic-minded
individuals into funding their campaign to harass victims by providing
funding or political support for their activities.
The person lured into the Father's
Rights advocates machinations has no idea that his true agenda is to punish
his victim for leaving him, not to see his child. As far as the citizen
knows, he is "helping" a child.
There are over a quarter of a billion
people in this country. The overwhelming majority of these men, women and
children are honest, law-abiding citizens. Even amongst divorced couples,
the likelihood of a man engaging in the type of pathological, prolonged
vendetta against an ex-spouse or ex-girlfriend promoted by the Father's
Rights movement is quite rare. Although most Americans are aware of abuse
prevention laws, the percentage of the population who has needed protection
to escape an abuser is relatively small. Even amongst women who have previously
gotten a restraining order, many may have only needed the order in the
initial stages of a divorce when the jilted spouses' behavior crossed the
line into combativeness. Most men are evolved enough to recognize their
behavior is becoming unmanageable and seek therapy or the counsel of friends
to help them deal with feelings of grief and anger. We are a benevolent
society. Few people have personally come into contact with an abuser intent
upon harassing his former intimate. Even fewer have experienced the rare
pleasure of being the object of obsession. The type of vendetta a typical
Father's Rights advocate is engaged in is beyond the comprehension of the
average American. For this reason, Father's Rights advocates prove true
W.C. Fields famous quotation, "there's a sucker born every minute."
With few exceptions, the batterer is capable of locating a steady supply
of "suckers" to carry out each element of his vendetta without
question.
Differentiating
Legitimate Fatherhood Groups from Illegitimate "Father's Rights"
Groups
It is unfortunate that the actions of
irresponsible males have damaged the positive image of fatherhood in our
society. Negative stereotypes permeate the media and society. The pairing
of the term "father" with negative terminology such as "deadbeat
dad," "couch potato," or "sports widow" belittles
the important role fathers could play in the family and the function they
have in contributing to the emotional and moral development of their children.
"Bad names... are applied to other people...
to link a person to a negative symbol. The propagandist who uses this technique
hopes the audience will reject the person or the idea on the basis of the
negative symbol, instead of looking at the available evidence" (Aaron
Delwiche, Propaganda Analysis, 1995).
Negative stereotyping of fathers is every
bit as degrading to men as the pre-feminist virgin/whore dichotomy which
stereotyped women as either sex objects or mothers. Like a wolf in sheep's
clothing, Father's Rights groups often solicit funds and gain media support
by pretending to support the concerns of the majority of nurturing fathers.
They harness the righteous indignation of fathers chafing at the same types
of demeaning stereotypes which drove feminists to stand their ground in
the early 1970s and use it to their own, illegitimate purpose.
Father's rights groups have learned to
shift tactics, from incendiary rhetoric to more modest proposals. They
have honed a more tender image, supplying bumper stickers that avow, "Kids
need Fathers, Not Visitors." They have also forged strategic alliances.
Twenty three groups (many of them headed by signatories of the Father's
Manifesto) recently came together under the agreeable name of "The
Children's Rights Council," recruiting to the board Abigail Van Buren,
noted child psychiatrist Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, and Republican Senator
Fred Thompson of Tennessee. (Divorced Dads Emerge as
a Political Force, Kate Zernike, the Boston Globe, May 19, 1998).
What has gained them the most mileage, however, has been their use of scientific
studies of children from intact, functional families on the role healthy,
normal fathers have on their children to tout their own agenda.
How important are fathers to the development
of their children? [Ed: See research
notes at http://www.thelizlibrary.org/]
"Children who come from families with
psychologically involved fathers are cognitively more competent, have higher
degrees of compassion for others, manifest fewer sex-stereotyped beliefs
and have a more solid internal locus of control." (S.
Robert Moradi, M.D., Psychiatric Times, January 1997, Vol. XIV,
Issue 1). Although it was traditionally believed that fathers
played a more important role in the development of their sons than their
daughters, a positive relationship with a father figure is especially important
to the development of females. "Girls with active
and hardworking dads are more ambitious, more successful in school, attend
college more often, and are more likely to attain careers of their own.
They are less dependent, more self-protective, and less likely to date
or marry abusive men." (Joe Kelley, Executive
Director of Dads and Daughters, website www.dadsanddaughters.org/tenfacts.htm).
At first glance, illegitimate Father's Rights groups
often purport to promote the common sense research of legitimate fatherhood
interests to mask their true agenda, regaining control of or punishing
their ex-partner for leaving them by controlling the children. "These
groups exert an inordinate amount of energy minimizing domestic violence
and the very real detrimental effects it has on children and very little
energy addressing issues that help children." (Patricia
A. Levesh, Greater Boston Legal Services Battered Women's Legal Assistance
Project, Letter to the Editor, the Boston Globe, January 6, 1999).
Inadvertently helping an illegitimate group hurts the interests
of children, not helps them. The ability to deconstruct the propaganda
and differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate issues is critical
when assessing any group purporting to represent the interests of children.
Perhaps the easiest way to differentiate between
legitimate and illegitimate fatherhood groups is to compare their agendas
and mission statements. Although both types of groups appeal to the public
to help further the cause of children, it doesn’t take long for most Father’s
Rights advocates to get to their true agenda – abolishing abuse prevention
legislation and child support laws. For example, the Alliance for Non-Custodial
Parents Rights (ANCPR) announces that their mission is to "promote
Equal Parenting (shared parenting) for children and believes that child
support enforcement and sole custody violate the constitutional rights
of children and their non-custodial mothers and fathers" (www.pacificnet.net/~ljaks/).
Another group, "Roe v. Wade for Men", advocates for an absolute
right of a man to force a woman to abort a fetus or forfeit future child
support and provides boilerplate pro-se lawsuit forms at http://members.aol.com/dnaand14ca/
for fathers attempting to enforce his Constitutional right to "sow
his wild oats."
Although much of this propaganda may initially sound
innocuous, the reader must deconstruct the propaganda to get to the core
message of "we don’t feel we should be punished
for failing to support our children." Child support laws were
enacted by the legislature after much fact-finding about factors such as
cost-of-living, day-care, and the restrictions placed upon the career of
the custodial parent when juggling children with work. Any parent who has
balked at the day care provider's bill knows how expensive it is to provide
quality care for your children while working. To truly comprehend the issue,
the reader needs to recognize that failure to pay child support often results
in great hardship for the custodial parent and dependent child and can
often mean loss of housing, inadequate nourishment, and inability to procure
adequate medical care for the child. It is to alleviate the suffering of
innocent little human beings these so-called "fathers" have helped
create that has prompted most states to utilize the contempt power to disgorge
court-ordered child support. Recalcitrant parents are not permitted to
"literally sit on their hands and defend any
contempt allegation by relying on the prosecution's burden of proof."
(Hicks on Behalf of Feiock v. Feiock,479 U.S. 1305
(1986); 180 Cal.App.3d, at 654). However, most judges will grant
generous repayment plans for a man who has fallen behind on their child
support for legitimate reasons. Draconian penalties for failure to pay
child support are only enforced after the non-custodial parent has demonstrated
an extreme pattern of refusal to pay (or work) in spite of a current ability
to do so. Any group that advocates for non-support of minor children should
be immediately suspect.
Another red flag is any site that refers to "throwaway
fathers" or "the divorce industry" (i.e., Coalition for
the Preservation of Fatherhood (CPF) http://fatherhoodcoalition.org)
or encourages changing divorce laws to penalize a woman for leaving a dissatisfying
marriage (i.e., New Jersey Council for Children’s Rights http://www.vix.com/crc/CRCnj/home.htm).
These groups seek to regain control over spouses who are divorcing them,
usually through forced marriage counseling or enacting extreme economic
penalties for filing for divorce, including loss of custody, loss of marital
assets, and forced joint physical custody arrangements where the child
is shuffled between incongruent households so that the father can avoid
paying child support. "When domestic violence
is or has been present in the relationship, shared parenting arrangements,
couples counseling, or mediation arrangements may increase the danger to
children and to the nonviolent partner" (Congressional
findings, VAWA proposed 1999 amendments, H.R. 357, Title II, s. 201 (20)).
Once again, by deconstructing the message these groups are sending the
public, the agenda becomes clear.
Most child psychologists agree that divorced families
are less desirable than intact families from a child-rearing standpoint
when the family is not dysfunctional. However, reducing children
to chattels owned by the parent who is least dissatisfied with the status
quo, shuffling them between two households, or returning to the days when
women were the legal property of their husbands, is even more repugnant.
Father's Rights advocates "real agenda is to
make sure that men maintain control over custodial parents and have access
to their children regardless of the father's behavior and regardless of
whether it's in the best interest of the children themselves"
(Patricia A. Levesh, Greater Boston Legal Services Battered
Women's Legal Assistance Project, Letter to the Editor, the Boston Globe,
January 6, 1999).
Although most people would agree that courts are
not well equipped to handle the emotional battlefield of a divorce, effectively
returning to an era when women, children, and property were all chattels
owned by the husband is not the answer. Judges (who are often male) are
generally quite sensitive to the needs of non-custodial fathers and will
bend over backwards to award liberal visitation agreements affording ample
opportunity to remain an active part of children’s lives (sometimes to
the detriment of children who have witnessed spousal abuse). It is only
when a non-custodial parent has demonstrated an extreme pattern of using
the child to control the custodial parent or there are serious questions
about the child’s wellbeing that visitation will be restricted or supervised.
"For purposes
of determining child custody, it is not in the best interest of children
to (a) force parents to share custody over the objection of one or both
parents when there is a history of domestic violence; (b) punish abused
or protective parents who protect themselves or their children; (c) presume
allegations of domestic violence or child sexual assault are likely to
be made falsely or for tactical advantage during custody and divorce proceedings;
and (d) make 'friendly parent' provisions a factor when there is abuse
by one parent against the other or a child..." (Congressional
findings, VAWA proposed 1999 amendments, H.R. 357, Title II, s. 241).
Despite claims to the contrary by Father's rights
advocates, visitation is only cut off in extreme circumstances. To reduce
the divorce rate, society must address the issues which cause marriages
to break down, not force unhappy couples to remain married.
The most extreme groups are the ones openly advocating
for abolishing or seriously restricting the issuance or enforcement of
restraining orders (i.e., Victims of False Allegations (VOFA) http://www.hky.com/frn/frlinks.html;
Dads Against Divorce Discrimination (DADS) http://www.peak.org/~jedwards/DADS.html).
Once you get past the front-page media propaganda,
you will find irrational hatred of restraining order laws typical of the
hard-core batterer. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Gender
Bias Study did not find that the rights of men had been trampled by the
abuse prevention act. To the contrary, the high court found a disparity
between the protection promised to women by the law and the actual manner
in which it was applied. A similar task force in New York found that, far
from exaggerating the extent of the abuse they suffered, women minimized
the severity of the violence. Although obtaining a civil restraining order
is a simple process in most states with a 51% preponderance of the evidence
standard, it is much more difficult to have visitation denied or be successfully
prosecuted for violating these orders than the Father’s Rights movement
would have the public believe.
The issuance alone of a restraining order is rarely
justification in divorce court for restricting parental rights, since courts
must document with clear and convincing evidence (a much higher standard)
that the child witnessed the abuse and was harmed by it. Even if
the perpetrator is arrested, the defendant is awarded every possible protection
during the prosecution process to protect his constitutional rights. The
rules of evidence dictate that very little of the evidence a victim may
have to support her claim of abuse actually makes it into the courtroom,
and that even less will be believed due to the batterer’s absolute Fifth
Amendment right against self-incrimination. The victim, under the guise
of "cross-examination", must often withstand hours, even days
of humiliating cross-examination regarding every questionable incident
which may have occurred since kindergarten, while the batterer laughs
at her from his position of absolute privilege. It is rare that a victim,
on such an uneven playing field, is able to demonstrate that she was battered
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Patricia A. Levesh of the Greater Boston Legal Services
Battered Women's Legal Assistance Project recently wrote, "In
our experience as advocates for thousands of victims of domestic violence
in custody and visitation disputes, very few abusers are arrested, prosecuted,
and/or sentenced" (Letter to the Editor, the
Boston Globe, January 6, 1999). The angry men leading the charge
against the abuse prevention laws are so blinded by personal grievance
that they cannot see the broader picture. A batterer must work very, very
hard to be convicted of violating a restraining order, and work even harder
to actually serve time for his behavior since most sentencing guidelines
allow leniency for the first few offenses.
Perhaps the largest tip off that a group may be illegitimate;
however, is a singular focus on father’s rights. By deconstructing
the propaganda, once again the reader of Father’s Rights literature is
left wondering how the entire judicial and legal system, which still consists
overwhelmingly of men who also happen to be fathers, could be so biased
against their own gender. Most of the judges on the bench, the legislatures
who are creating the laws, even many of the support personnel (such as
police) who oversee the enforcement of the law are also fathers.
Although there are situations where men are fighting archaic social roles,
the reader should be skeptical of any group which attempts to convince
the public that there is an elaborate conspiracy to deprive fathers of
their rights.
"The typical abuser's
reaction to the legal system is that the system is unfair to be publicly
embarrassed and put out of his home. Abusers tend to minimize their abusive
behavior… consider their actions as not abusive, and think that private
actions are not properly the subject of scrutiny." (Gender
Bias Study of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1989, p.
83).
Abusers view their domination of their female partner
and children as a constitutionally protected right. Nowhere in their
propaganda is it acknowledged that the female partner has a right
to not be physically or emotionally abused, or that a child has a right
to be raised in an atmosphere that doesn't include emotional abuse or violence.
Once the propaganda is deconstructed you realize that the only rights the
Father's Rights movement is fighting for is the right of a man to
control a woman, which is not the agenda of the majority of evolved males
in our American culture.
So what is a legitimate fatherhood "group?"
The answer to that question is really quite simple. Look around you.
Every time you see a group of fathers out couching their children’s sports,
or encounter the father’s branch of the local PTA, or a group of father’s
at a local church or synagogue working together to make life better for
their children, you are encountering the legitimate fatherhood movement.
Every time you see a man pick up a book, such as Fathering by Will
Glennon, which encourages fathers to be more involved with their children,
you are seeing the legitimate fatherhood movement. Every time you see a
divorced father stifle the urge to fight with his ex-wife when picking
up his children, visit consistently, and focus on the best interests of
his child, you are seeing the legitimate fatherhood movement. Each time
a man decides to spend time throwing a softball around the back yard with
his child instead of turning on the television, or you see a man equally
sharing child rearing responsibilities (such as bath time) with his spouse,
you are seeing the legitimate fatherhood movement in action. It is all
around us. It is the backbone of our society. It is the behavior of the
overwhelming majority of men in our society. The good fathers of the world
don’t have much time to devote to promoting elaborate conspiracy theories
to the public. They’re far too busy being good fathers.
One very helpful list of how a
single or divorced father should be focusing his energy follows:
Ten Tips
For Single Dads
Dr. Lois Nightingale, Ph.D.
1. Find ways
to stay in contact even when distant or unable to see your kids regularly.
Such as: sending cards, jokes, silly stories or riddles, e-mail, phone
calls, audio tapes, photos, or putting a scrapbook together to share next
time you are together.
2. Never let
kids overhear you saying anything negative about the kids' mother, her
friends or her family.
3. Be predictable.
Follow through on your commitments. Kids need to able to count on your
promises.
4. Remember holidays
and birthdays. You are creating memories that will last a lifetime.
5. Help kids
express their feelings. Listen to what they say and then model for them
how to state feelings directly and appropriately (boundaries on how kids
act out feelings are ok.), but try to let your children know you always
accept them regardless of how they are feeling at the moment. For instance,
"I can see that you are angry. It is ok to be upset, but it is not
all right to hit. Use your words." For more ideas you can read "How
to Talk so Kids Will Listen" and "Listen so your Kids will Talk"
by Adele Farber and Elaine Mazlish.
6. Spend time
with each child individually without any other adults or kids doing a child-centered
activity together. Bonding and special moments happen one on one.
7. Surround yourself
with support, and take care of yourself so you can have the physical and
emotional energy to deal with kid issues. If you are and overwhelmed it
is harder to deal with kids with a sense of humor.
8. Give 5 compliments
to every directive (a directive is a request or criticism). This will create
a sense of lightness and positiveness in your home. Your kids will listen
to you because they will learn that they can expect to hear something positive.
9. Spend quiet
time together. Walking in nature, bicycling, fishing, reading to your child
(t.v. off) etc.
10. Read together
during a quiet time before they go to bed or in-between activities during
the day. Reading children's books about feelings or how other children
have coped with the upheaval of divorce will help them find words to ask
you the questions they need to have answered. " My Parents Still Love
Me Even Though They're Getting Divorced, is a story/workbook that helps
children better understand divorce and what they can do to feel better.
This book can be obtained by calling Nightingale Rose Publications at:
(800) 898-8426 or visiting our web site at www.nightingalerose.com.
Nightingale Counseling
Center 714-993-5343
http://www.nightingalecounseling.com
There are many types of legitimate fathers support
groups. For example, At Home Dads (Massachusetts) is a support group for
fathers who have chosen to work part time or stay home with the children
while the wife is the primary breadwinner. Often, couples will choose this
option when the wife is presented with a lucrative career opportunity which
compromises the well-being of the children and the husband is in a better
position to place his career on hold. Fathers who are primary caregivers
often feel uneasy with the reversal of traditional roles and may feel isolated
from the rest of society.
An "at home dad" is not a husband
who happens to be home due to chronic unemployment or underemployment while
his wife is forced to work to support the family and then come home at
night to be the primary caretaker. Rather,
"At Home Dads" helps support families who deliberately choose
to have the father assume the role of primary caregivers.
Another example of a legitimate fatherhood group
is called Dads and Daughters (DADS) based out of Deluth, Minnesota (not
to be confused with Dads Against Divorce Discrimination, an illegitimate
group). Nowhere in their web site, literature, or views is the agenda of
the illegitimate Father’s Rights movement mentioned. Instead, the focus
is purely on encouraging fathers to become active participants in their
daughters physical, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual development.
Their list of "Ten Things a Dad of Daughters Can Do" promotes
listening, making the world better, encouragement, discouraging eating
disorders, respect, play, involvement with school and sports, and teaching
young women to manage money responsibly (http://www.dadsanddaughters.org/tentips.htm).
The group's current project, "2000 for 2000," is aimed at rallying
fathers to become involved in their children's school to promote education
about the unrealistic body images the media is sending to young women and
men and discourage eating disorders. Joe Kelley, Executive Director of
DADS, is former co-publisher of New Moon magazine, an entirely girl-written
magazine for independent young women and girls, and also has former experience
working at a battered women’s shelter. He poignantly sums up his viewpoint
of the dilemma fatherhood creates as follows:
"We have
all heard some version of the 'shotgun' parable. We all laugh at the thought
of Dad greeting his little girls first boyfriend on the front porch polishing
the shotgun, but we need to look at the message such parables are telling
men. Fathers are afraid for their daughters. And they should be. Our daughters
are vulnerable. Society encourages the objectification and propertification
of women. The media sends a message to boys that girls are little more
than body parts to be exploited for their own gratification. But, we can’t
send a message to our daughter that she can’t take care of herself, or
that boys are bad. Avoid pushing your own agenda or your fears onto her.
We need to listen to her needs, encourage her strength, her savvy, her
dreams and her sense of self worth. Instill your values in her. As fathers,
we need to get off our butts and change media images and things in society
that hurt our daughters… the responsibility of a father is to make the
norm respect for all people, boys and girls, men and women, black
and white. Treat her the way you want her to be treated [by men] and she
won’t be interested in boys who only are only interested in her boobs instead
of her mind."
--
Interview with Joe Kelley, Executive Director of DADS, June 23, 1999
IS There Bias
in the Courts?
"The... judge made
derogatory remarks about the battered women's assistance group whose representative
was present in court in support of the victim, including the comment that
they were 'a one-sided man-hating bunch of females... and a pack of she-dogs.'
After the trial, the judge approached the victim in the hall and told her
in the presence of the Interact representative that once his wife had slapped
him and that he had "laid her on the floor and did not have any more
problems from her."
-- In re Greene,
328 N.C. 639, 403 S.E.2d 457, 258-263 (1991)
"Unless the child has
burn marks on him, we don't care what you can prove your ex-wife does to
the kid. We're not going to go against the express wishes of the child."
-- Comment of Law
Guardian to father seeking custody in New York Family Court (1999)
Father's Rights advocates frequently garner sympathy
from the populace by making outrageous claims about bias in the courts
against fathers. Recent Congressional fact finding has proved that
not only are these claims false, but also that discrimination tends to
be against the mothers, not the fathers as claimed. Although there
are isolated cases of fathers who were good candidates for custody who
lost a custody dispute, most of the men who are active in the Father's
Rights movement have lost custody or visitation due to persistent physical
abuse or extremely emotionally abusive behavior, not due to judicial bias.
The mask of slanted facts presented to the public
can enrage the populace and stimulate legislation which is harmful to women
seeking to escape abuse. Although the majority of the "discrimination"
reported by men in custody disputes is the (usually male) judge simply
acknowledging that it was the mother who did 70 or 80% of the caretaking
in the family while the father was busy with other interests, I will address
the human tendency to form preconceived notions (bias) so the reader may
more fully detect true bias and differentiate it from the simple, realistic
analysis of facts that occurs in most courts today. In a few isolated cases,
bias against men in the courts has occurred and should be addressed. Bias
is intolerable in any court. If the feminist movement allows one single
man to be discriminated against because of gender, we are handing the Father's
Rights movement fuel to feed the fire of the demise of our hard-fought
rights. For justice to work, it must be fair to all.
A psychologist is trained to recognize that behavior,
however irrational, does not operate in a vacuum. Even the most dysfunctional
behavior becomes completely rational once the observer understands the
underlying "programming" of history, perception and emotion which
meld together to create the individual personality. Although it is difficult
to precisely pinpoint any single individual act, social psychology teaches
us that groups of people with similar "programming" will often
be drawn together and engage in orderly, predictable patterns of behavior.
For example, social workers are often drawn to a
profession where they are required to step into a situation and protect
an abused child because no one stepped in to protect them from abuse as
a child. The best rape intervention counselors have often been violated
themselves. Battered women's advocates often witnessed abuse as children,
or were forced to escape battering as adults. An attorney's childhood experience
with law enforcement, whether positive or negative, may lead him to prefer
criminal defense advocacy, or prosecution. Through catharsis, the "wounded"
individual learns to heal himself by helping others. Even a judge, who
is prized for his impartiality, may possess unconscious motivations originating
from situations which have little to do with the people before his bench.
When a person has come to grip with his "demons"
and comprehends how a past experience shapes his perceptions of an event
which is occurring in the present, he gains compassion and insight which
can be a powerful tool for creative problem solving. However; a person
who has not worked through his or her own "baggage" can be an
incredibly destructive force when unleashed, under the guise of justice,
into a group of individuals struggling to cope with changes in their lives
over which they have little control. Whether male or female, the unenlightened
advocate relentlessly pursues his agenda to strike back at the people he
perceives as having done him harm by striking back at all who remind him
of the person who hurt him, whether the attack is deserved or not.
When you deal with any person, you are dealing with
every event that person has ever encountered in their lifetime filtered
through the judgement, bias, and coping mechanisms that person was socialized
to use in any given situation. Have you ever eaten something that you thought
was benign and gotten food poisoning? What was your reaction the next time
somebody presented you with food that looked like the food that made you
ill? Even though you rationally knew it would not harm you, did the mere
sight, thought, or smell of that food make you too nauseous to eat? Have
you ever heard a voice similar to the neighborhood bully, cringed, then
discovered it was in reality someone else? Have you ever encountered what
you thought was a snake, jumped back in fear, then discovered it was only
a stick or piece of rope? Although you may have laughed and been embarrassed,
in each of these situations your heart raced nonetheless as the hypothalmus
(lizard-brain) signaled your body into flight or fight mode before the
more evolved cerebral cortex could process the information.
Cranial nerve 5, which runs directly from the medulla
to the nerves controlling your stomach, literally gives you a "gut"
reaction to any situation which bears even slight resemblance to a traumatic
situation we may have experienced in the past. Evolution "fills in
the gaps," causing us to react in ways which may have helped us survive
in the past but may no longer be optimal behavior. It is only through systematic
desensitization that an individual unlearns ineffective instinctual behavior
and is able to formulate a new response to a given set of stimuli. Even
then, old ineffective coping mechanisms vie for control of the adrenal
system should the higher cerebral functions be too stressed to moderate
the response. (Emotional Intelligence, Daniel Goleman,
1985). Our amazing limbic system does not differentiate between
a poisonous snake and a situation which vaguely reminds of someone who
hurt us -- it only signals us to attack or flee until we are taught a better
way to cope with a situation. Without this instinct, the human race could
not have survived.
In an ideal situation, the attorney, social worker,
guardian ad litem, judge, woman's or mans advocate will have worked through
their own "baggage" and are aware when a person or situation
may be tripping off their own past experience. Awareness of how a bias
may cause you to treat another unfairly will allow an individual to withhold
judgement and consciously use impartial analysis of the facts to formulate
a response.
However, many people are completely unaware of how
drastically past experience may color their perception of the situation
at hand. For example, a friend once asked me what my "gut" reaction
was to the young woman she had just hired. I honestly told her that I could
not make a fair assessment of the young woman because a negative childhood
experience of being mercilessly picked on by a group of the young woman's
race clouded my judgement and rendered informal evaluation worthless. Instead,
I recommended researching the young woman's past job performance and doing
a background check. I shudder to think of how my friend might have lost
out on a valuable employee were I to allow one unfortunate childhood experience
to color my life with prejudice.
Although the legislature explicitly found that the
overwhelming majority of discrimination existing in the judicial system
is aimed at women, cases where some discrimination sometimes
exists against some fathers should not be ignored. Attorneys, court
personnel, and women's advocates must diligently police their own ranks
to ensure that advocates with unresolved issues do not, in their desire
to protect women, inadvertently trample the rights of men. Although exceedingly
rare, cases do exist of legitimate fatherhood discrimination.
In Dedham Probate court I was able to find a case
of blatant, well-documented discrimination against a father. Kevin
C. is aware of the father's rights movement, but wishes to remain anonymous
to avoid having his children used as pawns. The detailed guardian-ad-litem
report opens with the sentence "everyone agrees the father is the
better parent." The report and depositions in the case detail how
the wife had abused the older daughter by threatening to break her arm,
repeatedly locked her out of the house (once until 12:30 am when she was
9), engaged in numerous blatant extramarital affairs (some of which the
children had witnessed), threw knives, told the 8 year old son that one
of her boyfriends (instead of his father) was really his father, and eventually
abandoned the husband and two children to pursue a lover who lived over
600 miles away in upstate New York for an entire year.
The ex-wife's deposition also contains the clear
admission that the father was the primary caretaker of the children more
than 50% of the time. School records, utility records, and the ex-wife's
own deposition supports the fathers contentions. Domestic violence was
not an issue in the case. One year, a cocaine arrest, and two failed relationships
later, the wife kidnapped the two children and brought them out of state
after the husband declined reconciling the marriage in an attempt to force
the husband into reconciliation. Understandably, the husband had no desire
to reconcile with a woman who repeatedly cheated on him and was abusive
to the children and filed for divorce and full custody. When asked why
he didn't file for divorce as soon as the ex-wife had left him for another
man, Kevin states that his only concern was not losing his children.
The guardian-ad-litem's report, after describing
the father as being a responsible, loving, and nurturing parent who had
been the primary caretaker for many years (not just the year the mother
abandoned the children) recommended to the court that custody remain with
the kidnapper mother despite ample evidence of parental unfitness, including
photographs of the 13-year-old daughter drinking a beer with her mother,
kinky photographs of the mother engaging in intercourse with various men
while others watched, the report of the daughter that the mother often
dressed her up in adult clothing and brought her out to nightclubs, a newspaper
article describing the children accompanying their mother to Howard Stern's
"Most Outrageous" contest where she undressed in front of the
crowd and painted her nude body, and a report from the daughter that the
mother had just given her a VCR and new contact lenses to bribe her into
saying she wanted to stay with her mother. The justification? The 8 year
old son who hadn't seen his mother during the year she had abandoned him
for her lover was "clingy" and stated he didn't want to lose
his mother again.
After receiving the guardian-ad-litem's report and
being advised by his lawyer he was going to lose, Kevin decided it was
not in the best interests of his children to subject them to further litigation
and ended his request for custody without bringing the matter before the
judge. The story does not end in Massachusetts. The daughter graduated
high school and moved to a college in Massachusetts near her father. Although
the ex-wife was collecting over $15,000 per year in child support for the
two children under an agreement that stated that he would support the children
until they graduated college, the ex-wife stopped supporting the daughter
and Kevin C. has paid her tuition, board, and set up a bank account where
he directly deposited $50 per week into her expense account. The now 19-year-old
daughter stated to me "I think my mom is bipolar" and submitted
a paper to her college psychology class outlining how her mother had physically
and emotionally abused her and tricked her into telling the guardian-ad-litem
she wanted to stay with her.
To this day, 6 years later, the wife is still sending
the husband e-mails querying "I didn't want the divorce. I still love
you. Why can't we get back together?" and using the children as pawns,
demanding that the father cannot visit with his children unless the new
wife stays overnight at her house, refusing to allow the father to visit
the children after he makes his monthly 1200 round-trip drive to visit
the children, and stalking the father, once dragging the son 700 miles
to spend the weekend following the father and new wife around Mount Desert
Island during a vacation, another time going 650 miles to "vacation"
the same week the father was taking vacation in a campground two miles
up the road from the beach cottage the new wife owns on Cape Cod. The ex-wife,
who is currently living with a man whose own son mysteriously drowned and
has been institutionalized for drug rehabilitation, went so far as to be
artificially inseminated (even though she is not married), then repeatedly
told the son the father was a baby killer after she miscarried. Although
the child is withdrawn, emotionally unstable, and has few friends, attempts
by Kevin C. to resolve his concerns in New York Family Court by requesting
a family evaluation were no more successful than his initial attempt in
the Massachusetts courts.
It is important for the women's movement to pay attention
to cases such as Kevin C's, since he is the "poster child" class
representative who will bring about the downfall of many hard-earned rights
should the father's rights movement convince him (or another like him)
to join their ranks. A well documented case of discrimination such as Kevin's
would go a long way towards legitimizing the unlawful, harassing actions
of batterers.
Kevin C. was the primary breadwinner, but he began
to take over the role of primary caretaker early in the marriage when
his now ex-wife's mental stability began to deteriorate. In this respect,
men such as Kevin C. more closely represent the challenges faced by working
mothers who juggle career and child-rearing responsibilities on a daily
basis. Men such as Kevin C. are a minority, but it should not be forgotten
that as the women's movement educates men and encourages them to share
childrearing responsibilities, father's who are equal caretakers will increase.
Despite this one case which spans two states, and
contrary to the Father's Rights cries of blatant discrimination, my own
research into other cases mirrored the findings of the legislature. In
the only other legitimate case I could find of father-discrimination, a
besotted father joined one of the "father's rights" groups and
began utilizing inappropriate litigation tactics as a pro se litigant based
on inadequate legal advice provided by the group. We will explore the story
of a former Fathers' Rights advocate, William E., in another subheading.
The "Father's
Manifesto" - A Political Platform to Repeal the Women's Right to Vote
"We Signatories to
the Fathers' Manifesto, responding to natural and Biblical laws, in defense
of our nation and our families, hereby declare and assert our patriarchal
role in society. America is an experiment in freedom, and the feminist
experiment in freedom, under the guise of 'equality,' unleashed a panapoly
of social ills which have become a cancer on our land, led to the moral
and economic destruction of our nation, made America a house divided unto
itself, created a vast underclass with a bleak and bankrupt future, and
is the greatest national disaster we have ever faced.
"Recognizing patriarchy
to be the greatest creator of wealth, prosperity, and stability civilization
has ever known, we hereby demand that our children, homes, lives, liberty,
and property be unconditionally restored to us. We hereby demand replacement
of the doctrine of Parens Patria with the Biblical doctrines upon which
this nation was founded. We hereby recognize and reaffirm that patriarchy
is the order established under God and His Natural Law.
"We, the posterity
of this nation, hereby reclaim our ancestral liberties and God-given rights."
-- 1997 Reaffirmation
of the Father's Manifesto
The most frightening of the Father's Rights groups
are not content with returning to an era when it was believed that "father
knows best." Rather, they seek to turn the clock back on women's rights,
including their reproductive freedom, rescind the Nineteenth Amendment
of the Constitution, which grants women the right to vote, and force women
to return to a subservient role in the family.
Such archaic views appear so absurd to modern society
that they are comical. It is highly unlikely that the entire population
of women would vote to deprive themselves of their right to vote. However,
as absurd as such ideas are in our own culture, we must remember that blatant
misogyny is still the norm in much of the non-Western world. In China,
families selectively abort female fetuses to ensure that their one allotted
child is a son. In many Middle Eastern countries, women can be executed
for committing adultery or imprisoned for appearing in public without a
male chaperone. Our American servicewomen experienced this phenomenon
during the Gulf War when they were issued licenses identifying them as
"men with feminine features." Saudi Arabia was unable to
overcome its misogynist views that women were incapable of driving a motor
vehicle even though American women made up a substantial percentage of
the military forces protecting them from Quadafi's aggression. The novel
"The Handmaids Tale" hypothesizes a future where women
are forced into a subservient role of childbearing and home making; literacy
is outlawed, and women are forced to be chaperoned and wear shapeless robes
in public. Fundamentalist Muslims have committed this very crime in nations
such as Afghanistan, where women (including former doctors and businesswomen)
are confined to their homes, denied medical care, forced to wear shapeless
garments in public and be chaperoned, and can be executed for teaching
their female children to read.
Although absurd, it is necessary to recognize that
these viewpoints exist in our society. What is most disturbing is not the
fact that a few disturbed individuals have these viewpoints, it is the
revelation of who has these views. Far from being the inarticulate,
uneducated men one would expect to perpetuate such garbage, these men are
the frontrunners of the Father's Rights movement. To truly comprehend the
agenda the Father's Rights movement is advocating, one must look to the
views of its leaders. An interesting compilation has been published by
Feminista writer Trish Wilson and Father's Rights watchdog "liz"
at http://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/fathers.htm.
"It is time to update
our database regarding the state of the 19th Amendment... the last survey...
on women's suffrage resulted in 80% of us advocating (in confidentiality)
the repeal of this amendment." (Daniel Amneus,
Ph.D. a.k.a. John Knight a.k.a. Mark Hall a.k.a. Art Books, author of The
Garbage Generation and The Father's Manifesto, as quoted in
http://fathers.zq.com/home3.htm). "We
have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape ... we called
it exciting." (Warren Farrell, Ph.D., author
of The Liberated Man and The Myth of Male Power, advisor
to Fathers Rights for Equality Exchange, board of directors of the National
Congress for Fathers and Children, and board of directors of the Children's
Rights Council). "Feminist women
have almost completely destroyed the family and all associated with it
that is holy. The bible clearly states that the fathers are to be the head
of the household. This is not to mention the Magna Carte, upon which all
of our constitutions and institutions are founded. But the government,
with its judicial henchmen, have propagated upon society a system that
is diametrically opposed to the Word of God..." (Stuart
Miller, American Fatherhood Coalition lobbyist, advocate for the repeal
of the Violence Against Women Act, signatory of the Father's Manifesto).
"We need them to kill people who want to move
our money into the pockets of the criminals (like her) who want
to take our money to foster her immoral ideas of how a society should be
... let's make no mistake about why assholes like her want to see our guns
taken away." (Gary Clark, Words that Work
Publications, Inc., as quoted in http://fathers.zq.com/home3.htm).
"Every child support order weakens the marriage
market..." (David Usher, American Coalition of Fathers and Children,
National Congress for Fathers and Children). "Feminists should be
charged with nothing less than Crimes Against Humanity, sentenced, and
summarily executed in public squares." (Nick
Szabo, author of video Father Figure, as quoted in http://fathers.zq.com/home3.htm).
This is the true mindset of the Father's Rights movement.
Part of the original Father's Manifesto, which states
that "marriage is a social contract... with a woman to share her reproductive
life with a man" (http://ww.emf.net/~estephen/manifesto/aum00066.html)
is the more radical "Petition to Repeal the Nineteenth Amendment."
This petition blames the "panoply of social ills" referred to
in the Father's Manifesto upon the women's movement, including "divorce,
foreign debt to Japan, drug use by men, increased crime (including murder)
and prison populations, devaluation of the dollar, the decline in the Consumer
Price index, the increase in foreign autos produced outside of the United
States sold to other nations, increased poverty" (including that among
black Americans), "implementing affirmative action, failure of the
military, decrease in SAT scores, decline in the savings rate, increased
public debt, cocaine use, the trade deficit, government spending, drunk
driving arrests, motor vehicle fatalities, health services increases, illegitimate
births, single-parent households, television viewing, the number of lawyers,"
and, to top it all off, "the increase in weight" of the American
public.
The solution for this problem?
"We the undersigned, hereby
demand that the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
... be repealed." ("Petition to Repeal
the Nineteenth Amendment", http://members.easyspace.com/fathers/19threpeal.htm)
If the Father's Rights movement expressed these opinions
publicly, they would be ridiculed and be unable to garner funding and public
support for their cause. Publicly, they appear to be quite congenial.
"Often, men who abuse
are well-liked and highly regarded in their communities... and peers. They
appear to be rational, well-adjusted, and even sensitive, and to have positive
social relationships." (Gender Bias Study
of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1989, p. 83).
In the privacy of the forums of their Father's Rights web sites; however,
it is disturbing to realize how extremely misogynist these men are and
how much time and energy these men expend to undermine the rights of women.
Whenever assessing the purpose of a group purporting
to represent the rights of men or children, it is necessary to look beneath
the surface to the marital history, criminal record, and true agenda of
its leaders. Below is a list of signatories who also happen to be leaders
of various Father's Rights organizations from the 1997 re-declaration of
the Father's Manifesto printed out in January of 1999. Of the 278 signatories,
142 (51%) list themselves as leaders (not merely members) of 55
different father's rights organizations. 93 (33%) list which organization
they are leaders of, 49 don't list what organization they are with, but
of those 38 indicate they are from southern California, indicating that
the movement began there and is working it's way across the nation. Eleven
signatories claim to be authors or publishers (4%), 5 are attorneys (2%),
one runs a television station, and one is an Indiana State Representative.
Mysteriously, after father's rights watchdog "liz"
published the list at http://www.gate.net/~liz/fathers/fathers.htm
and forwarded copies to the N.O.W. and members of Congress, the Manifesto
disappeared and an innocuous list of computer files appeared in its place.
Not, however, before I was able to print out my own copy of the signatories.
The list was moved to http://www.emf.net/~estephen/manifesto/aum00066.html,
and will doubtless be moved again by the time this article comes to print. [skip
down to next section]
