Shot In The Dark: Father's Day

June 19, 2005

Father's Day

Father's Day has always been a very ambiguous thing for me.

On the one hand, our society devalues fatherhood to an extent that in a hundred years will look barbaric and moronic, assuming mankind becomes more enlightened before then. Fatherhood is beaten from every quarter; the media's official archetype for the father today is a dundering, flabby, inept buffoon who doesn't deserve the gorgeous, capable, fully-realized woman with whom he's created a family. In the halls of the legislatures, it's worse; fathers are regarded as deadbeats waiting to happen, as paychecks who'd damn well better pay to support "women and their children" (which has become a term of art that may as well be used as a single word). At the courthouse, fathers are ripe sucks; if their marriage breaks up (or never happens), their chances in a head-to-head custody trial are generally virtually nil, while their rights to visitation (to say nothing of their right to raise their children) are generally honored only in the breach. However, their status as breadwinners is highly praised; any attempt to reform the confiscatory "child support" system is resisted bitterly by county bureacrats and the women's organizations who have the hotline to power when it comes to family court issues. A woman can take the kids and move across country with very little recourse (depending on the jurisdiction; some are pretty diliigent about father's rights; many more are too busy to care; some are actively hostile); a father's life can be made a living hell, and his only option, frequently, is to grin and bear it and count the days until the youngest child is 18. Oh, and if Mom wants to play dirty? Despite studies that show women are at least as likely to resort to violence as men, it's the guy who is assumed to be the perp, and considered guilty until proven innocent if the police ever are called to the home - a fact that will be used against him in court.

While I personally have little to complain about - I have joint custody, and I, unlike most divorced fathers, spend plenty of time raising my kids as opposed to "visiting" them (a term that has always struck me as grossly insulting - for a good man to have to "visit" his own children). But the discrimination still rankles, five years later.

Beyond that? Even if you raise your children, you frequently run into credulity on the part of bureacrats, teachers, medical people; there's a prevalent assumption that Mom is the "real" parent, that you as a father are only in the office, the school or the clinic because you had to be dragged forcibly away from ESPN, and that you'll probably spend the prescription money on Powerball tickets anyway.

So there's a temptation deep down in my heart to say "You want to give fathers something? Reform the #$%^&* family court system, so that a man's gender isn't held against him, so that there is a presumption of joint physical custody. Reform child support so that both parent's income counts toward the payments. Then you can go sending cards".

And yet I enjoy it; it's the one day a year that I get any actual deference from the kids. And dang, it feels good.

Of course, now that I have kids of my own, I have a lot more regard for what my own father, Bruce Berg, wound up having to do, raising three kids on whatever North Dakota pays teachers, and doing a pretty good job of it if I say so myself.

So happy Father's Day, Dad - and all the rest of you out there. Hopefully today was a good day for all of you. Hopefully next year it'll be better for all of us.

Posted by Mitch at June 19, 2005 09:27 PM | TrackBack

Comments

As a child of a mother who fought for 16 years to try and get anything close to reasonable from my sperm donor, I totally disagree on child support reform.

I don't care if the woman is Bill Gates and the man is homeless living on the street. The Man has a responsibility, and should pay accordingly, no matter the need.

I don't know if that percentage is 10% or 50% or 90%, but a set portion of your income should be set aside for the child, no matter your need or his. Why should a Man be held completely without responsibility just because he happened to marry someone with more money than he has?

For us, it was never that we had money, it was that my Grandfather had money and my sperm donor would argue that he didn't need to pay because my Grandfather could help us out. Gramps never did and we lived below the poverty line for a large portion of my childhood, while my sperm donor was paying all of $25 a month. Meanwhile my mom worked and raised a kid while he lived the highlife in another state.

So ya, totally against reforming child support. I'm with the people who want to make it higher and be tougher on those who don't pay.

Posted by: CCK at June 20, 2005 01:59 PM

But the vast majority of non-custodial parents (mostly fathers) are *not* "sperm donors", they're good parents in a crappy situation.

I'm not writing to defend people who skip out on their kids, male or female. Punishing fathers strictly because of their gender is wrong. Sorry your "sperm donor" was such a nonentity, but he's an anomaly, an exception rather than a rule.

Kids need more from their male parents than money. Money's important - but so is having a father in one's life, assuming the father is a good person, as the *vast* majority are.

Posted by: mitch at June 20, 2005 04:01 PM

I agree with what you are saying. A father being involved with their children is 1000 times more important than donating money. But that doesn't mean they should be let off financially.

I will say though, that my experience growing up in the 80's was that most men did not share responsibility with for raising their children. At best they might see them every other weekend, none of my friends ever did the four days here three days there deal. In fact I can remember hearing about a kid in the 8th grade that did that, and it was so odd that it stuck with till this day. While it may have changed now, certainly back then it was not an anomaly.

I think that is something that changed in the 90's, about the same time that parents started going to every single sporting event or practice that a kid had. I don't think my mom ever went to a single soccer or baseball game, because it just wasn't expected back then. Same with parenting from men.

And I'm for whichever parent is not the dominate parent paying child support. if the man has custody or does the majority of the work, then the woman should pay. I don't want to punish anyone base on their sex. In fact I don't want to "punish" anyone. I just want people to live up to their responsibility.

Posted by: CCK at June 20, 2005 06:38 PM

I agree with what you are saying. A father being involved with their children is 1000 times more important than donating money. But that doesn't mean they should be let off financially.

Posted by: CCK at June 20, 2005 06:38 PM

It is sad that you refer to men as "sperm donors". Whats more it is insulting. I work very hard for my child and have had to chase her all over the country because my X keeps moving. There is virtually nothing I can do to stop her from moving with my child and she knows this and takes full advantage of the situation. Please try to realize that men are parents too, and we don't need anymore punishment then we are already getting. I am sorry you got a bad apple.

Posted by: refsbca at August 29, 2005 01:15 PM

Posted by: buy tamiflu at October 20, 2005 10:00 PM

I can't believe it, my co-worker just bought a car for $36185. Isn't that crazy!

Posted by: Betsy Markum at November 16, 2005 12:47 PM