Here are some examples. Right now many states have family laws which clearly establish that when a man engages in the sex act with a woman, he is, by virtue of willfully participating in that act, agreeing to an irrevocable, binding legal contract to support the child financially if the woman becomes pregnant. But women are allowed a free ride on the sex act. There is no law in Illinois, or I would venture to say, any other state that stipulates that a woman who willfully engages in the sex act with a man thereby enters into a binding contractual agreement to allow the man to visit the child created by the act and have an unlimited opportunity to text or email the child 24/7 throughout the life of the child ...These issues, of men’s rights in child custody are largely ignored by law. They are left to be resolved by divorce courts, which are stuck in the past with regard to sexual stereotyping and gender bias. And it is a situation women are loath to change. There is no incentive for them to change. After all, as things stand now, women have all the reproductive rights and men are left only with the responsibilities. They are fighting an uphill battle in court when they seek to assert their rights as a biological father.
A woman is not likely go to jail for refusing to allow the father of the children to see them on visitation days. And there are no punishments for women who direct hateful speech regarding their ex-husband to their children.
Noted family lawyer Jeff Leving was able, after a great deal of effort, to pass a father’s visitation rights law in Illinois. But his is hard to enforce and it is a constant battle.
Similarly, men have no reproductive rights with regard to saving the life of their child from abortion. The plain fact is if a woman becomes pregnant the right to abort is hers alone. The man involved, even the husband, has no legally enforceable right to prevent the abortion. This is particularly painful for men who, during courtship, told their fiancé they wanted to have a family.
While the nation and the Supreme Court are engaged in a serious debate of same-sex marriage rights, the right of traditional husbands are largely left ignored. These issues are difficult to enforce through litigation and after an abortion has been performed there is no remedy. A man cannot sue his wife for depriving him of a child. Even if he attempted to do so it would be very difficult to win that kind of case.
Which brings up another set of gender stereotypes and institutionalized sexism. The prejudices against men’s reproductive rights are ancient and deep. While feminist activists have repeated, and continue to repeat, that women cannot be victimized by old gender stereotypes, few if any media commentators discuss the idea that men are victimized by stereotypes. To this day the stereotypes are repeated that men only want sex from women.
Our society is not encouraged to overcome the stereotypes that ridicule men. This may be part of a strategy. Those who wish to put down men with old-fashioned stereotypes, such as that men only want women for one thing and will readily engage in the sex act with any stranger, may be putting men down just so they will lose children in divorce court and have to pay. This brings up an interesting point: while the nation is encouraged to dismiss stereotypes about women, such as that they cannot make responsible decisions or hold demanding executive jobs, when it comes to reproductive rights the stereotypes that men can’t control their sexual impulses and that they should have to pay for everything are stereotypes that are reinforced and perpetrated with glee.
The stereotypes against men merely serve to deprive them of reproductive rights. Women are not naturally better at nurturing, we are told. This stereotype is refuted to support the idea that there is no reason that married men can’t help take care of the kids. But judges usually think children are better off with their mothers. Unless, of course, the man who wants custody is in a same-sex marriage and wants to adopt. Then, somehow, a nurturing male is a possibility that should be seriously defended.
Another major stereotype that interferes with men’s reproductive rights is that men are naturally violent. This enables judges to quickly approve of “temporary restraining orders” and “orders of protection” against husbands. All the wife has to do is allege in court that she is “afraid” that the husband may strike her. And this TRO is granted even if the husband has absolutely no history of violence.
These three stereotypes, that 1) men don’t want to take care of children and are only interested in sex, 2) that men are defined by society as the wage earners, and 3) that men are naturally prone to domestic violence, are used by women and their lawyers to continue the abuse of fathers and deprive them of the affection of their children. In brief, men are selfish, violent, uncaring brutes naturally unfit to be fathers. How convenient to the family court system, and to women who want custody and the house.
And women complain that they alone have to battle against stereotypes. The anti-father stereotypes don’t matter as long as the stereotypes are used to get custody of the children, monthly child support, alimony checks, and the house to the ex-wife.
When these issues are combined they reveal how men’s reproductive rights can be denied every day in family courts, how the legal system disrespects the rights of fathers, and how children are used by women and their lawyers as pawns in a system designed to break apart families and disrupt the emotional bond between fathers and their children. A system designed to make fathers angry, to create great emotional distress to the children, and ruin the family the father wanted to have and care for.
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment