When students at the University of Toronto gathered to hear a talk about male suicide, they were met with screaming feminists who shouted abuse in their faces, pulled fire alarms and other wise acted like spoiled children refusing to share their toys. Another student at Durham University in the UK, attempting to cope with the suicide of his friend, was refused the opportunity to create a society for other men struggling with emotional issues, on the grounds that allowing men space to gather was ‘controversial’ and akin to promoting ‘white rights’.
All across Australia, the UK and Canada, men gather in what are known as ‘men’s sheds’, where they often engage in woodwork, bicycle and vehicle repairs, gardening, milling and furniture restoration. Men gather to engage their minds and bodies in a task, and to share some of the emotional difficulties they experience – difficulties that are often met with mocking or dismissal from the wider culture. These sheds are credited with providing men critical, life-saving emotional support in a way that men are comfortable with, and enjoy.
Men and women prefer different kinds of emotional support, and both are placed into double binds when it comes to how they express themselves. Women are encouraged to openly share their emotions, and then are accused of being too emotional. And according to author and grief counsellor Tom Golden, ‘men are shamed by women and men alike when expressing their hurts and articulating their needs, but once shamed into silence men are again shamed for their failure to communicate’. The double bind for men is often described as ‘toxic masculinity’, although ‘toxic femininity’ receives scant mention. Golden goes on to explain that there are four reasons men prefer to communicate while partaking in activities, such as those offered by men’s sheds.
Men’s pain is culturally taboo, making the expression of that pain without support very difficult. A woman crying alone in a restaurant is likely to elicit compassion, while a man crying will be more likely to elicit disgust. This powerful taboo means that men prefer a pretense (woodworking) to gather, even though the point of the gathering is to express their pain. The woodworking negates the taboo aspect of the discussion.
Men feel they have a duty to protect others, but not to expect protection for themselves. Only when men are in groups together do they have the expectation of protection. The brotherhood between soldiers, firefighters, other groups of men who protect one another creates a way out of the bind that by needing protection, men forfeit their right to protection, because real men are protectors, not the protected.
All humans exist in a dominance hierarchy. Women will behave aggressively towards peers they feel are ‘too sexy’, and men, similarly, compete with one another on their talents and abilities. Activities in all men groups offer men the opportunity to establish their talents and determine their rank, and from that position, assistance is rendered. When men know where they stand, they can admit that standing is difficult.
Women ‘tend and befriend’ with greater ease than men because they have the bonding hormone oxytocin in greater quantities, amplified by estrogen. Simple biological differences between men and women create different flight or fight profiles. When men cooperate in physical spaces with one another, the tendency for testosterone to negate the effects of oxytocin is mitigated – behaving in a friendly manner with one another creates the conditions for more ‘tending and befriending’.
Spaces for men are not dependent on ‘privilege’ or ‘entitlement’. Spaces for men reflect genuine biological differences in how men interact with one another and how they communicate and support one another. Spaces for men are ‘controversial’ only because the idea of men being vulnerable, and needing the support of one another is controversial.
It shouldn’t be.
Have you ever wondered why it just seems “normal” for kids in separated families to see their fathers, at best, every other weekend? That’s because the EOW (every other weekend) model is the standard “visitation” schedule nationwide. This is done without due process, without jury trial, with little to no recourse available to fathers who want to be considered an equal parent. It’s actually in violation of the supreme law of the land: The Constitution. The parent/child relationship has been upheld over and over again by the highest courts as being so fundamental as to warrant due process protections under “Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness” and the 14th Amendment. For those inclined to say “it’s about the children’s rights, not the parents’ rights”, this IS about children’s rights. A child has a right to both loving parents, and for both to be considered equally as important in the eyes of the law.
This means that both parents —whether mother or father—are legally entitled to have their parenthood protected by having due process observed. IE, children should not be deprived of either parent by the state or the other parent unless that parent has been found to be unfit. A finding of unfitness should occur ONLY with due process being observed. This means that the “accused” should have the right to face their accuser, opt for a jury trial, and the burden of proof should be on the state/other parent to prove with Clear and Convincing evidence that the child would be best with one parent primarily than with the other.
Other arrangements may be best for a child, and if parents can work together then perhaps they can arrive at an optimal parenting plan without state intervention. Barring that, however, the starting legal presumption needs to be that both parents—regardless of gender and regardless of who gave birth—should be considered to be equally in the child’s best interest when they walk into a courtroom. A father should not have to overcome higher standards to prove he is equally in the child’s best interest to achieve the same considerations that a mother receives by default.
A presumption of shared parenting needs to be the preferred starting point in Family Courts at the state and local levels. There are FEDERAL laws that assist the lower courts in widespread lopsided custody rulings. This is not an issue of Federal Vs State rights. This is an issue of State Laws vs basic Human Rights. What we are demanding of the Presidential candidates is for Family Law Reform to be an election topic. The issue needs to be addressed at ALL levels of government. We cannot allow Federal level politicians to defer the issue to the individual states, because it is a Constitutional Human Rights concern. The problem is not unique to the US, either. The European Union Parliament has unanimously declared shared parenting to be introduced into laws in individual European countries as being the preferred parenting arrangement in separation and child custody.
In the upcoming presidential primaries, we are asking our politicians to take a stance on these issues. Please share far and wide, and take the time to upvote these questions to the candidates.
Republican Candidates: “Would you support social security title IV D and family law reform?”
It’s well past time our concerns stopped falling on deaf ears. Let’s bring it into the national conversation.
–Derek
Americans for Equal Rights for Fathers 
Every child deserves an involved dad.
Many people are surprised at the research which shows a connection between father absence and an increase in social problems in America including: poverty, teen pregnancy, juvenile delinquency, physical abuse, suicide, substance and alcohol abuse and a host of other troubling social problems. The sad fact is that not only does father absence hurt children, fathers suffer as well.
Developing positive relationships with their children encourages and motivates fathers to lead more constructive lives, even in the most difficult of circumstances. For instance, the simple act of regularly writing to their children from prison improves outcomes for incarcerated fathers, including increasing their odds of training for, finding, and keeping a job once they reenter society. Evidence shows that fathers who write to their children once a week have a lower risk of violence in prison and recidivism when released. These positive outcomes are multiplied when we study the impact on the children of inmates, and how father contact can change the trend of their children’s lives – even while the father is still incarcerated.
In addition, research and experience tell us that there is a strong correlation between lack of father involvement and many larger social challenges. Sadly, trends are against us. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) notes, in a study that investigated these trends, 2006 – 2010, “fewer fathers now live with their children” over the period studied. Reasons for this depressing trend include incarceration, non-marital childbearing and other factors.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 24 million children in America, one out of three children in America, now live in biological father-absent homes. Furthermore, according to the national surveys conducted by NFI, 9 in 10 parents believe there is a father absence crisis in America.
This study, an excellent resource on the impact of father-child involvement, also describes how “increased involvement of fathers in their children’s lives has been associated with a range of positive outcomes for the children.”
Fatherhood is in crisis in America, and you can help. By using our evidence-based programs your department, agency, or not-for-profit group can increase father involvement, improve the lives of children everywhere, and reverse negative trends in a wide range of social issues. Or, by becoming an individual activist, you can bring fatherhood programming to your community and help to reduce a host of social ills in your neighborhood.
NFI is a nationally respected, oft-cited, non-profit organization committed to better outcomes for children and our society as a whole. Our research and programs make a positive difference in the relationships between fathers and children – even in cases where a father is not physically present in the home. You don’t have to be a bystander to the fatherhood crisis in America; you can help to turn the tide and help us create a world in which every child has a 24/7 Dad.
Thank you for your interest and support,
The National Fatherhood Initiative® Team – http://www.fatherhood.org/social-problems-in-america
LikeLiked by 3 people
LikeLiked by 2 people
LikeLiked by 2 people