Mess, I did that in my first message and again in my second.
Dadtotheend, I don't understand your response to #2. Re #1, yes I know women get sole custody far more often than men becuase they are far more commonly the primary caregiver. But that just begs two questions.
The first is not a gender question, but simply this: why should the primary caregiver get sole custody? My income paid for far more of the matrimonial home than did hers but that didn't stop the law from giving her half. In my view, sole custody should never be awarded. Children are not property and neither parent should have 'custody and control' -- as if the kid was a car or something. Children need both parents and the law should start from the presumption that mothers and fathers are of equal importance to children and thus should be equally accessible by them.
The second question is the gender one. Women are usually the primary caregiver because they are typically closer to, and spend more time with, the child during infancy. They carry the unborn child, they give birth to it and they alone can breastfeed. As a result, mothers start from a much closer point than does a father in their relationship with the child. They are genetically more likely to be the primary caregiver than are men.
Similarly, men are bigger, stronger and have more testosterone. They are thus, prima facie, more suitable as firefighters, police officers and combat soldiers. Feminism however correctly pointed out that women can overcome those disadvantages if given a chance, and were successful at bringing in affirmative action programs to achieve just that.
As a society, we can't have it both ways without being gender biased. Men too can be just as capable 'caregivers' as can women if the genetic disadvantage is not held against them. Awarding custody to the 'primary' caregiver maintains the gender bias in the same way as did firefighter competitions that required applicants to be able to run while carrying 150 pounds. If the latter is wrong, so is the former.
I'm no longer sure which way is right. But after spending most of my youth being a radical feminist, I'm becoming more conservative. Let the women have the kids and let the men be the firefighters. Sometimes nature is smarter than we are. But please, let's figure it out and let everyone know. At this point, thousands of men are feeling seriously misled and mistreated.
In my case, I thought that I was an equal parent and tried very hard to be one -- I certainly changed a hell of a lot of diapers. After separation, my community made it clear that I'm not and that my proper role is more like a visitor in my children's lives, much like that of a grandparent. By order of the court, I am permitted only to see them every other weekend. Within that limited amount of time, I simply cannot know and understand them well enough to be an effective parent.
I had an emotional reaction to this thread because I made the same unhappy choice that Helpless Dad did. I agreed to let my ex stay home with the children when they were infants. I thought -- and still think -- that it is better for the children if at least one parent is at home and she was not only breast feeding but she was a wonderful mother. I knew, only because of my legal training, that that would give her primary caregiver status and that that would be a problem should we ever separate.
Yeah, maybe I should have said 'fuck you, if you're not going to work, neither am I'. But that somehow seems immature and irresponsible. I loved her and the kids and like almost everyone in a relationship, I made a concession in the belief that it was the best decision for all. I'd probably make the same choice today but this time I wouldn't make quite the same investment in being a great father that I did then. In much the same way, it seems to me now, as my father did.
|