Fathers’ Rights Are Fathers’ Duties

by Stephen Baskerville

Separation and divorce destroy children’s lives. It helps to remember
this because of the vast industry now devoted to what has been called “good
divorce.” This is the trend that seems intent on making divorce palatable
and letting parents feel good about destroying their children’s home. At
best this is damage control. It is impossible to insulate children from
the damage caused by the destruction of their families. Those who pretend
we can are lying to themselves and to us. Moreover, the traumas of divorce
are almost all exacerbated by litigation. Worse, they are all exacerbated
when one parent – usually the father – is marginalized from the children,
as is now almost invariably the case.

The reasons why separation and divorce damage children are too numerous
to mention. But from the standpoint of fatherhood politics, the most important
reasons involve authority.

The very act of separation and divorce, aside from any accompanying
behavior or words, itself sends a myriad of terrible messages to children.
It says that parents can put their own wishes above the welfare of their
children. This is obviously a bad example, which the children can then
carry on to their own families. But a perhaps worse effect is to destroy
parental authority. No parent who has put himself or herself before their
child in such a basic way has any moral authority to instruct, correct,
or discipline a child. How can parents instill lessons of selflessness
in children when their own actions demonstrate precisely the opposite?

More specifically, it destroys notions of trust, obligation, and fidelity
in the child, qualities basic to any family. In effect it says that it
is okay to break promises and obligations such as marriage vows when they
no longer suit our convenience, it is okay to make up the rules as we go
along and, in effect, live by no principles except those that suit our
momentary convenience. Again, how can parents instill an ethic of fidelity,
obligation, and trust when their own actions manifest the contrary?

Even more fundamentally, it destroys the integrity of the family itself.
The act of separation and divorce says that a family is not something from
which the child can derive a sense of unconditional love and security.
On the contrary, a family can be disbanded at any time at the whim of one
member. Even more, it says that a family member can be disgraced and expelled.
Especially when it is unilateral (as it increasingly is) and when one parent
is marginalized from the children’s lives, the effect is the expulsion
of a family member. This is the destruction of the child’s entire world
and the source of unimaginable terror to a child. If Daddy can be pushed
out of the family, after all, what about me? What security is there in
my family if members can be expelled because they do something Mommy or
someone else doesn’t like? What if I do something Mommy doesn’t like? What
is the meaning of Mommy’s or Daddy’s love if it can be terminated when
it is no longer convenient?

Finally, litigation against family members exacerbates and in effect
politicizes these messages. It says that the state is a legitimate instrument
to punish the child’s loved one who has fallen out of favor. It says that
rather than solving problems as a family, we declare a member to be a public
enemy and bring the power of the state to bear on him. In an almost literal
sense, we declare civil war on our loved ones. Again, if the police can
be used to keep Daddy away or throw him in jail because Mommy no longer
likes him, what will they do to me?

Perhaps from the political standpoint, the most significant lesson for
the child is the firsthand experience of tyranny and oppression, both in
society and within his own family. The custodial parent becomes a kind
of satrap of the court, and the dictatorship of the court over the family
is extended and writ small within the family. The custodial parent tyrannizes
over the non-custodial parent, undermining his authority, dictating the
terms of his access to the children, talking to him contemptuously and
condescendingly as if he were himself a naughty child, perhaps engaging
in a full scale campaign of vilification (which similarly mirrors the
larger campaign against fathers waged by the state and media). After witnessing
this against the non-custodial parent, the children then experience it
themselves. With no checks on the power of the custodial parent, the tyranny
is naturally exercised over them as well. In extreme (but not uncommon)
cases of course this leads to child abuse.

All these messages concern authority – parental authority, paternal
authority, political authority — and therefore they are of primary interest
to fathers.

When a father participates in separation and divorce, when he engages
in litigation, when he even acquiesces in them, he too is sending these
messages to his children. When a father takes part in these actions he
is participating in the destruction of his own authority. He is taking
part in the destruction of his own fatherhood.

Certainly there are times when we must resort to the courts just to
be permitted to see our children. But in the long run when we rely on these
means, when we allow them to dictate the terms and place of the struggle,
we lose and so do our children. Even when these actions are undertaken
by our spouses unilaterally, the child is receiving the same message. Then
it is up to us alone to provide a positive counter-message.

The literature on “good divorce” offers no rebuttals to these
messages. There is a more effective and more constructive alternative.

The Political Alternative

The alternative is to become active politically for the defense of our
children and families.

I know this idea immediately raises red flags among many. Images come
to mind of strident “activists” (like the dreaded feminists perhaps)
screeching about their “rights.” Many men are uncomfortable in
this role, in which they have never before seen themselves. Our political
world has become such a plethora of competing interest groups all trying
to grab their share of the pie that we have forgotten what political action
has done to relieve the truly oppressed.

More serious is the common assumption among men that working politically
for the rights of fathers and children will divert time and energy from
their own individual legal cases and reduce time with their own children
while resulting in few tangible benefits in terms of winning custody or
increasing visitation. This is a natural assumption, but it is not true.

In fact the opposite is true. Political involvement may be the best
thing you can do for your own case and for your own children. Moreover
it will be beneficial to you and your children immediately, even if you
never achieve the stated goals. It is more effective than all the touchy-feely
advice you will get from therapists. And it is more constructive than all
the legal help from the scavengers of the divorce industry. This is less
because of what it gives than what it demands: It requires qualities that
are directly necessary to fathers who have been through desertion, separation,
divorce, false accusations, and the rest. Most importantly, it carries
messages that can help heal the traumas of children who are suffering from
separation and divorce.

Here are some of the direct and immediate benefits of political action:

Political action establishes authority. If you have gone through a desertion,
separation, or divorce — especially if your child was abducted from your
home or you have been accused of some kind of abuse – your authority as
a father has been largely destroyed. Even fathers in intact families have
felt their authority take quite a drubbing these days, largely owing to
the anti-male climate. If your wife has placed her desires before her children’s
welfare by destroying their home, she too no longer has any moral authority
to correct a child. Political action gives you the authority of one who
has taken the moral high ground and acts out of principle along with others
through constructive means for the welfare and establishment of his family
and his society.

Political action confers dignity. When you lost your children you lost
your dignity and received the stigma of the “evil male.” You
unexpectedly joined the ranks of “abusers,” “batterers,”
and “deadbeat dads.” Suddenly all those things you assumed about
others are being assumed about you. You “must have” done something
to deserve losing your children. This is a very difficult stigma to remove,
and you won’t eliminate it by cowering behind a lawyer. Men do not hire
someone else to fight their battles. Standing up for your rights and those
of your children is a way of proclaiming to the world that you have nothing
to be ashamed of and that you have done nothing wrong.

Properly understood, political action is not shrill or strident. It
is the dignified but uncompromising demand for civil rights: the right
to be fathers to your children. No political movement ever has lasting
success without dignity, and fathers will get nowhere unless they show
dignity both in their families and before the world. No doubt you have
already discovered that in the home it is up to you to act maturely and
not to quarrel with your spouse, because of the bias in the courts and
because your spouse probably has no incentive to be restrained. Why not
take this one step further into the public realm and forego the quarrel
of a court battle? The same principle applies. We don’t have to hide our
actions from our children or anyone else because they are ugly, undignified,
shameful, or vicious – as, for example, is beating up on our spouse in
a courtroom with a hired goon. We are acting openly in the public realm.
We are asking for justice in the court of public opinion. Nothing could
be more dignified.

Political action will make you a better father. The qualities necessary
for being an effective political activist are the same as those necessary
for a good father: sobriety, commitment, fidelity, sacrifice. Demanding
your just rights is not a license for belligerence; quite the opposite.
All great revolutionary leaders were moral puritans who saw the need for
self-discipline. Lenin used to inveigh against libertine communists who
would substitute talk for action and initiate a dozen tasks and never complete
any. If you don’t like this comparison, consider Oliver Cromwell, who “conquered
himself” before he conquered his enemies. Frederick Douglass gave
up drinking because he saw it was the most effective method of slaveholders
to keep his people in bondage. Martin Luther King used to speak of the
need for “self-purification” prior to action. The principle is
simple: self-government requires self-control. Alcohol, gambling, womanizing,
frivolous pastimes are incompatible with republican virtue. If you can’t
give up your sports page or your evenings in front of the TV, your girlie
magazines or your nights out with the lads, you’re no use as a fathers’
rights activist. You’re also probably not the world’s greatest father.

Political action is an effective alternative to violence. Without lending
credence to the hysteria over “male violence,” let us grant for
the sake of argument that fathers may be tempted to become violent when
their children are taken away (who wouldn’t?). If you find disturbing thoughts
suddenly appearing in your head when they take your children, channel it
into peaceful and constructive but determined activity for your children.
Martin Luther King used to observe that violence in the black ghettoes
decreased significantly following political demonstrations. Involvement
in fathers’ rights is an effective way of channeling rage that might otherwise
fuel domestic violence.

Political action shows your child you care. You may be caught in the
vicious circle of being ordered to stay away from your children by a judge
and as a result having them think you don’t love them because you’re not
there. This is their natural conclusion and could be exacerbated by Mom’s
poison. You can’t tell them it’s because of Mommy or the Evil Judge that
you aren’t there, and you shouldn’t; even if you could it wouldn’t matter.
Children judge by actions, not words. On the other hand, once your children
witness you exercising your civic duty and your constitutional rights on
their behalf and on behalf of other fathers and children, they will eventually
understand why. They will realize that political action requires sacrifice,
and they will admire you all the more and profit from your example. You
are also telling the world that your children are so special that their
father is willing to sacrifice everything for them.

Political action is an excellent education for your children. Some fathers
feel they must not involve their children in their quarrel and fear they
may be punished for it. But this is true only because the conflict is personal
and litigious; in other words, because it is shameful. Children should
always be spared the trauma of quarreling parents and animosity between
spouses, whether at home or in court. But exercising your civic rights
– indeed, fulfilling your duty as a citizen — is a different matter entirely.
This is something your children should see. We make enormous efforts in
schools, churches, and civic organizations, teaching children about civic
involvement, about constitutional rights and the importance of cultivating
a public spirit and of sacrificing private desires for the larger public
good. We introduce them to the teachings of Socrates, Thoreau, Gandhi,
and Martin Luther King. Yet when it comes to putting their ideas into practice
by following their example, we are told this is somehow “inappropriate.”
In contrast to litigation, when we undertake political action we are not
fighting our children’s mothers; we are fighting injustice. What could
be more inspiring than to emulate these men on behalf of your children?
Children know that actions speak louder than words. The lesson that civic
action requires sacrifice, and must be undertaken with dignity, is both
edifying for them and something that will make them proud of their father.

Finally, political action will provide your children with the spiritual tools
they need to cope with family breakdown.
This may not be obvious, yet it
is true. But only if it is based on dignity, sacrifice, and love. A politics
of hate, vengeance, and demonization is not a fit lesson for children.
But a politics of love and non-violence has its origins in the same spiritual
values we try to instill in our children in school and in church. No child
is too young to learn this lesson. If you take your children to Sunday
school (and many people feel this is an important duty of a father, even
if he himself has previously not been religious), you will be exposing
them to the courageous acts of the Hebrew women, of Shedrach, Meshach,
and Abednego, of Jesus himself. These figures demonstrated precisely the
qualities children of divorce more than others need to see. Teach them
about sacrifice for others, about commitment to a cause, about obligation
as citizens, about the power of moral authority, about love to those who
hate us, about fidelity to principles larger than themselves.

Martin Luther King, the leading American practitioner of non-violence,
used to talk about the latent violence in the system of state-enforced
segregation and of the need for a “creative tension” to bring
this violence out into the open. We have a similar task. A latent violence
already pervades our families which are in effect occupied by the instruments
of the state forcibly separating us from our children. We must extract
the violence from the system, and we must be prepared to suffer violence
ourselves, but we must use none. At some point we may have to adopt Ghandi’s
principle: “Fill up the jails.”

No doubt you will be accused of dragging your children into the quarrel.
But non-violent political action shifts the quarrel away from the person
to the injustice. Our children are already at the center of the quarrel.
The have already been dragged in as the chief victims by the belligerent
parent and by the state that has invaded their family and set up a kind
of domestic apartheid between the custodial parent and the child, on the
one hand, and the non-custodial parent. Martin Luther King writes boldly
and eloquently of how, despite the false pathos of those who “deplored
our ‘using’ our children in this fashion…the introduction of Birmingham’s
children into the [non-violent civil rights] campaign was one of the wisest
moves we made.”

It is an illusion to pretend that we can shelter our children from a
quarrel of which they are at the center and which by its very nature is
constantly damaging them. What is important is not that they be sheltered
from it but that they be provided with the tools to deal with it and with
any crisis constructively. On their own what they will adopt are the tools
of withdrawal, guilt, aggression, alienation, or any number of other symptoms
of divorce that have become all too familiar. No matter how careful you
are they will also absorb your hostility as well as that of your spouse.

The touchy-feely proponents of “good divorce” are right as
far as they go when they tell us to how to mitigate these and suggest we
“talk” to our children to mitigate these emotions. They suggest
you tell your children, “No matter what we do to one another, your
Mommy and I still love you.” But consciously or not, the child knows,
“but not enough to keep my home together.” You are supposed to
tell your child, “What’s happening between Mommy and me is not your
fault.” But the child knows that she is the center and “cause”
of the quarrel. Talk is cheap, and children know it. No amount of talk,
contact group jargon, or therapy sessions is going to save children from
the traumas of what their parents do. What we can do is give them the tools
to overcome them and to act. These are partly spiritual, but they are also
political.

The Bible and the Koran teach that we are all guilty of sin. Creative
non-violence teaches that we are all responsible for society’s injustices.
Choose the value system you prefer. The point is that these religious and
political values teach us how we and our children can channel our inadequacies,
real and imagined, into constructive action.

We should tell our children that we all do bad things. We are all sinners,
or we are all responsible for society’s injustices, or however you prefer
to phrase it. We cannot avoid guilt. What we can do is be sorry for the
bad things we do and ask forgiveness. What we can do is forgive those who
do bad things to us. What we can do is to love the person while hating
the evil they do – the message of Christianity, Islam, civil disobedience,
creative non-violence, and every other humane doctrine. We can teach them
what the Bible, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King all taught: that “unmerited
suffering is redemptive.” We can teach them the one central principle
of both religion and political action: that salvation requires sacrifice.
If we strive toward this, we will not only have happy, well-adjusted children
in spite of the belligerence they witness in others; we may just be permitted
to be fathers to them again. Or perhaps I should say that from that moment
we again will be fathers.

Copyright © 1998 – 2000 Stephen Baskerville
Department of Political Science
Howard University
Washington, DC 20059


Other pieces by this author

To learn more about Political Action, try:

 American Coalition for Fathers and Children