Supporting Resources for . . . New Fathers?

So, I'm in East Tennessee this weekend to visit my son and his wife and . . . no kidding, my first grandchild!

My daughter-in-law is going back to work next week. Baby is just about five weeks old. My son is going to be a stay-at-home dad, at least for a little while. He's scared to death. Eaten alive with angst about whether he'll be "good enough." But he shouldn't worry. That little boy of his adores his daddy! Even though he can't quite focus, he follows my son's form across the room, listening intently for his voice. When my son holds him, he arches his neck back to get a better look at daddy's face, at his eyes. Reminds me of this great photo of my late boyfriend and his oldest boy, when his son was just a tiny baby. I never treasured that photo as much as I do now. I can see the same look in my grandson's eyes when he looks at my son.

And my son has every bit as much "new mother" behavior as any new mother I've seen. He doesn't quite want to let my grandson go . . . not to me, not to anyone. He tries to understand and interpret every face the little guy makes. He changes diapers and beats himself up because he gets frustrated when my grandson does what most newborn baby boys do . . . pees in your face.

My son had some pretty hard knocks as a little tyke. More than most. He never really got to experience what a good dad looks and feels like. But boy, does he ever want to be what he never had. So passionately it's almost painful to watch him. Reminds me of one of the reasons I've focused so much of my legal work on fathers. When I started to hit my stride as a family law attorney, my favorite clients were this growing stream of young fathers who came to me, often with tears streaming down their cheeks, saying words to the effect of, "I never had a father, and by God, my child is NOT going to go through what I did!" or, "My father was (fill in the blanks) abusive, violent, absent, and I will NEVER do to my child what my father did to me!" Our own president is typical of this kind of young, committed father. And now, I see the same commitment in my son.

And next week, he's on his own. And he is really scared.

So, who is going to be around to help him? When I was a young mother, there were all kinds of resources for new moms. La Leche League. All sorts of resources just like the ones featured in this link: http://www.newcomersclub.com/tn.html#Johnson%20City

But neither then, nor now, are there very many resources for new fathers, especially those who lack the model of what a good father looks and feels like. Last fall, I took a vacation to my beloved mountains in Western North Carolina. While there, I met a lovely woman and told her all about my work and the young fathers who had inspired me. She almost broke down in tears. "Those poor, young boys!" she exclaimed, "How can they ever know how to be good daddies if they didn't have one?" Then she paused. "I guess they'll just have to rely on their heavenly Father," she said.

Wow! Maybe I don't exactly buy into the theology, but what a concept! Here's a mission for every fundamentalist male in East Tennessee (or anywhere else, for that matter). Instead of judging and denouncing abortion, how about you do something constructive? How about BEING the face of Christ to young fathers in your community? How about mentoring them? How about showing them what a good father looks like? Might be a way for them to see what my mountain lady friend suggested as their "heavenly Father."

Just an idea.

Equal Protection and The Domestic Violence Industry

The resources available to protect women who are victims of domestic violence are staggering. They are also a huge lobby of interest groups dedicated to suppressing information about the actual numbers and effects of domestic violence where men are the victims. Not long ago, a group of men in California won an appeal challenging statutes that gave money to domestic violence programs whose resources and services focused only on women. The California court found that the statute (actually, an exception to the Constitutional clause!) violated the rights of men to be treated equally with respect to the funding of domestic violence programs. You can find the case at: Woods, et al. v. Shewry, et al., C056072 (Cal. App. 10/14/2008) .

In October 2009, a Kanawha County, West Virginia judge struck voided regulations for domestic violence programs. Although I have been unable to locate the opinion and find the news reports of the decision unclear and conflicting, it is worthy of noting that more often, courts are taking a hard, cold look at the way State and Federal monies are spent on programs that violate the rights of citizens to government services, based on their gender. For example, can the Montgomery County Commission for Women be far behind?

Trading Places: Submission or Collaboration?

Awhile back, Psychology Today published an interesting piece on how to make peace with the opposite sex: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=19960301-000032&page=1. The article offered up the idea that, as gender roles, responsibilities and benefits change, it's worthwhile taking a serious look at what the other gender really means to each of us.

Second wave feminists burned bras, got jobs and abortions and pregnancy without a man, and told us that we weren't "really" women if we were "submissive" to men. Too often, Third wave feminists, the daughters and younger sisters of Second wave feminists, can't comprehend the concept of collaboration with a life partner because they are so busy living to please themselves. Real partnership trades off.

Sometimes, he cleans the toilet and takes the kids to dance class, while she works long hours to get that promotion. Sometimes, he's sick and she offers to pay the bills while she juggles a few spare minutes with the kids at the end of the day, making sure the caregiver cleaned the toilet. Sometimes, they both grit their teeth when his (or her) dad moves into the basement and asks, for the hundredth time, when mom (who died two years ago) is going to come home.

The point is, love trades places, as needed. And there is nothing love for another human being --- male or female --- won't do to care for the other. That's what we all need in this world. Giving up self to make things easier for other. Is that submission? Only when the other partner doesn't share the same commitment. When they do, it's called collaboration.

Men in Education: the Brave New World of Gender Bias

There's a ton of information out there about how difficult and biased and unfair education is for girls, but, like just about everything out there promoted by contemporary feminists, the information is either about twenty (or thirty) years out of date or applies only to limited areas of education, like science and math.

The problem is, there aren't enough good men in education. Why should there be? Men suffer enormous bias in the education system, as this Christian Science Monitor Post from three years ago points out: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0315/p11s01-legn.html. In fact, the incredibly low ratio of men in elementary education is directly linked to three things: (1) low status and pay (like, "Hey, you're a guy, can you move this desk to the other side of the room?" . . . even when the maintenance guy is down the hall); (2) the perception that only women become teachers; and the biggest one of all (3) the fear that they will be accused of child abuse (Hey, it happens all the time in divorce court, how much worse would it be if it happened in a way that destroyed your career, your livelihood and your professional reputation?)

There is an organization promoting men as teachers: http://menteach.org. Their site is full of strong support for the idea that, in the same way we need both genders as engaged, involved and responsible parents, we also need both genders to help our children learn. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that the biggest remaining problem for girls in education (lower performance in math and science) could be partly resolved if there were more men in education: http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3853842.html.

The reason there is such a delay in equity in this professional field, as in every other, is that the message of primitive feminism, that both genders should have equity in work, in opportunities, and in education, has been bulldozed into history by the more strident voices of women who are merely aping their historical "oppressors." Those ideas are old, out of date and unhelpful to us, and to our children.

Mean Girls or Gender Equity?

My best friend in college was this amazing young woman who had talent oozing out of every pore in her body. She was also . . . well, unconventional. That is to say, she did things the way she felt like doing them, whether it made her "fit in" or not. She had confidence by the truckload. She used to laugh at the girls who ran around in gaggles, giggling, and call them, "slick chicks." "We'll NEVER be like that," she'd say, "and thank goodness!" What she meant was that it was more important to her to be authentic than accepted. The "slick chicks" were beautiful, polished, and conformist, and everything but authentic human beings. In college, they still hung out in groups, just like children do in middle school. Whoever didn't meet their "criteria" was shunned or worse, in much the same way children behave in middle school.

Well, slick chicks don't disappear, they just get older and form "women's only" clubs dedicated to what they call "gender equity." For example, the Women's Bar Association (WBA), a group formed for women lawyers with chapters in almost every state. They hit their stride in the mid-80s and have only been increasing in political power since then. http://www.ncwba.org/aboutus-history.shtml

The problem is, they only manage to duplicate the problem they say they want to solve. Some state chapters may allow men to join, but I can't imagine a man in the world who'd want to belong. The WBA has become dangerously powerful. For years now, standard career wisdom in law schools in my state, and many others where the WBA holds the reins of power is that if you want to succeed in your career, male or female, especially if you ever want to be a judge, you absolutely must "get in good" with the WBA. I often wonder what would happen if there were a legal specialty organization dedicated to, and populated only with men with the same level of power? It is true that once, men held the same kind of power, but that was a long time ago. Not only that, but does it make sense to simply mimic the same kind of gender-based power and control? Will that even the score? Isn't it gender-based power that organizations such as the WBA were formed to combat? Could a similarly focused men's group get away with the same thing in these days of "gender equity??"

The WBA has our male counterparts in the bar and on the bench quaking in terror lest they say or do a single thing that would offend the Queen Bees. But honestly, why do we need such a group? It's not like women are the minority now! http://www.catalyst.org/publication/246/women-in-law-in-the-us


I suppose that when you've been put down for so long, it's only natural to want to stay on top of the heap, even if it means your stiletto heel is doing exactly what that hobnail boot did for so long! Remember when Mom used to say, "If he was jumping off the bridge, would you do it too?" Seems to me, it's time to listen to the good advice of our mothers!

Versus

Contemporary feminism has a lot more in common with uber-conservatism in the United States than either would like to admit. Both sides of the fence are staunch believers in the sanctity and possibility of perfect independence, particularly when it comes to individuals, although the conservative side of the fence believes it is a state that should primarily benefit men, while the ultra-liberal feminists believe only women should be entitled to it. Both are wrong.

It isn't a matter of independence versus dependence. The fact is, both states are harmful to humans. If we follow the "rugged individualism" model to its inevitable conclusion, we have an isolated madman (or woman) living in a bunker, slowly devolving into a world where everything is "us" versus "them." We promote mistrust. If we live in a world that requires dependence, whether for men or women, the ultimate result is acceptance of slavery based on a belief that some quality or characteristic makes one group "less than" the other. We still promote "us" versus "them."

What we all need is to value our distinct diversity at the same time we respect our need for one another. What we need is inter-dependence. We are all infinitesimally small, we all have limitations and strengths, we are all uniquely precious. Living from this place provides a network of support and strength for the society we all live in and to which we all contribute.

By definition

For a little defining help, Wikipedia has kindly defined both primitive feminism (which it calls "second wave feminism" Second Wave Feminism), and contemporary feminism (which it calls "radical feminism" Radical Feminism). In case you were wondering who won out in the historical pantheon, look around at your profession, if you have one. Is there a women-only group among you? Is there a need for it now? How much power does this group have and why do they have it? Does the group exist for equality, or for political or economic perquisites, and if the latter, are they really any different than the patriarchal power-brokers they replaced?