by Anonymous Logician, Copyright March 16, 2006, all rights reserved. 658 views
This week's column by Wendy McElroy discusses the recent surge for father's rights. McElroy focuses in particular on a suit filed recently by the National Center for Men, a suit touted as "Roe v. Wade for Men." The suit was filed on behalf of 25-year old father Matt Dubay, who "wants to relinquish all legal connection to a daughter borne last year by an ex-girlfriend who had assured him she was infertile. Specifically, he doesn't want to pay $500 a month in child support."
McElroy points out that the basic premise in play (a father is an important party in reproduction) is sound.
[O]nce a child is born and three entirely autonomous human beings exist. At this point, in my opinion, the worst inequity toward men in our society occurs. Men are held legally responsible for their children's support even when they are denied visitation. In essence, fathers have responsibilities without rights and that is a travesty, both legally and morally. Fathers live with broken hearts; children struggle without the love and guidance of both parents.
McElroy supports fatherhood, arguing that responsible men "should have a right to be active fathers; children should know both parents. That is the single strongest argument that advocates of men's and father's rights can advance." But McElroy gives several reasons NCM is on the wrong track, including the point that tying father's rights to abortion–possibly the most divisive social issue of the day–can only entangle their case.
But the most salient point here is that Dubay simply isn't a good example of fatherhood. Though McElroy doesn't stress this enough, in my view, she does agree that "pro-life advocates will be immediately alienated by the specific father being championed. These advocates are motivated by a desire to protect children, which fetuses constitute for them. Matt Dubay wishes to abandon his daughter, not protect her."
The failure of men to accept responsibility is a part of the issue that can no longer be ignored. Not only have deadbeat dads created a culture of reproductive fear in which an "unwanted pregnancy" becomes public enemy number one, but the accompanying trend of abdication in other spheres has led to bureaucratic "solutions" that only make things worse. Now men are realizing that they don't like the critters coming in through the open doggie door. But who forgot to close the thing?
And now organizations like NCM are fighting the problems by calling for more government interference. McElroy realizes this problem, and nails the little varmint between the eyes:
It seeks to extend Roe v. Wade, which even pro-choice advocates recognize as "bad" and ultimately unsustainable law. If successful, the lawsuit would create more bureaucracy and government in an area (family law) where bureaucracy is the problem. For example, "abandonment agencies" would be needed to handle the inevitable counseling requirement, the need for parental consent by underaged fathers, the paperwork on hearings required before the real papers could be signed, and so on.
A better approach, says McElroy, would be "to repeal laws and policies that enforce responsibilities without rights. Dismantle bureaucracies and encourage private agreement on family matters, preferably before children arrive. In the absence of agreement, promote arbitration so that courts become the last option and not the first resort."
Good points. But as Jon Foreman points out (I keep finding myself quoting this), "We're the problem; we're the politicians." Private solutions need more than simply "encouragement." Raw libertarianism can't help us here. We need societal transformation from the bottom up that can only come from changed hearts.
Only then will men be truly able to be fathers.
-----