Death of Dad

On the scale of pernicious social mores, the current dilution of the role of the father has to be up there. Today, the British parliament has voted against amending a Human Embryo and Fertilisation Bill which is, among other things, will remove the obligation on IVF doctors to consider a child’s ‘need for a father’. Furthermore, parliament has opposed a further bid to ensure there is a "father or a male role model" before fertility treatment. The legislation is designed to ensure that singletons and same sex couples are not barred from gaining access to the same fertility opportunities as heterosexual couples. That is a brilliant thing. Our concept of what a ‘normal’ family is must and should broaden. My worry is this legislation confirms what has already been accepted in society at large: namely, that fatherhood has been relegated to an optional extra – like a plasma TV – a nice bonus if you can get it. Modern life puts men and women in an unenviable position. Traditional gender roles are no longer economically, let alone socially viable. Rising house prices and above inflation increases in commodities have outstripped salary increases and left the family unit with little choice than to double their earning power. However, at a time when long-hour working cultures are reaching unreasonable levels (nine to five jobs are almost considered part-time), there is renewed pressure - especially on men - to be family centred. So while society has eroded the once clear roles for men and women, it has left them with real existential confusion over the most appropriate priorities. But if a relationship falters (and 50% of first time marriages still end in divorce), it is often assumed that the dad must move on. Separation from his children is considered less intense – something he just has to deal with. With 62% of divorces including children, this is becoming an epidemic of silent grief. By any measure the current family justice system is running a mock. A standard custody arrangement ‘allows’ fathers to see their children once every other weekend – which is regarded as generous if the mum is working. The legislation passed today simply echoes the legal bias facing dads seeking custody of their children after a divorce. How can father’s claim equal legal rights to their children when legislation now states that the need of a father is not a valid consideration? Why do we talk the language of equality and then quickly drop that lexicon in this context? Is there any evidence that children raised by single fathers fare worse than those by single mums? I haven’t seen any. What is wrong with a presumption towards shared parenting – surely the best parenting is both parents? Why aren’t we seeing more mediation and less legal wrangling? Why can’t the law seek as much possible to maintain the previous status quo which in most cases is what is best for children? Above all, why are we left with an adversarial, winner takes all system? All of this heartache for fathers, you may say, is nothing compared to the years of discrimination, marginalisation and chauvinism that women have had to endure down the centuries. I agree. But we diminish our society if we think that women are any more liberated by the subjugation of fathers. I am quite sure that the litany of angry and bitter fighting over children (which the lawyers encourage) neither brings the best out mothers or fathers. More crucially, the child is the net loser. Maybe the British parliament should do something about that. ENDS

World’s Apart

Something is happening in the world of philanthropy. Formerly the space reserved for the noble – it is being increasingly colonised by a new breed of smart (often young) business men and women.

These ‘social change agents’ range from the high profile – such as the sports shoe tycoon, Sir Tom Hunter - who has made no secret of his desire to give away $1billion, to the more discrete such as the anonymous Arab Sheik who recently gave the government of Bangladesh over $3billion to help the country recover from recent floods.

What these converts from business have in common is a recognition that commercial thinking and practice has a central role to play if this generation is to do a better job at sharing resources, empowering the vulnerable and protecting the planet.

We all know the trends are alarming. By 2030, the world’s population will have increased by another third – to 9 billion. Intra state fighting (which now far outstrips conflicts between nation states) is continuing to rise as the unholy scramble for the world’s resources intensifies. As geologists issue warnings that we are touching the limits of the world mineable assets, the relentless demand for gas, oil and coal continues unabated. In China, there are currently a modest 37 million vehicles in circulation. By 2030, this is predicted to increase to a staggering 270 million. All of this set against the reality that the ‘easy oil field’ finds of the Middle East are not repeatable.

In the next few years, $100 barrels of oil could seem cheap. Dfid predicts that we will see the price of oil rise to $150 per barrel in the next three years.

Inevitably, as basic commodities become more expensive, it is the poorest who suffer the most. Even today, 554 million people are without access to energy sources. What chance do they have of claiming their energy rights if trends continue? 85% of India continues to live on less than $2 per day – that in a country whose economic growth is the envy of all bar China. With these disparities, it may be that certain communities or even countries may not get any energy supply at all.

There is a fundamental and glaring discrepancy between the language used by international leaders in their desire to cut Co2 emissions while at the same time facilitating a massive demand for energy – fuelled by an unquestioned commitment to maintain economic growth.

Many ‘new philanthropists’ have little time for government quangos – they are also scathing of a voluntary sector that has failed to deliver meaningful progress with the $100billion that is passed its way each year. Their message to charities is forthright, if not pugnacious: stand aside – you’ve had a go at this – now let someone else try.

Understandably, there are those in the not for profit sector who view the new kids on the block as a threat. They would rather that these individuals worked through traditional structures and at least learnt from the sectors’ decades of lessons on the pitfalls of development. The fear is that the brash ‘business knows best’ attitude belies the complexity involved in bringing real social change.

However, if we are to meet the challenges of tomorrow, an inclusive movement which harnesses the talents and resources of every sector of society is the greatest challenge. That takes a quality of leadership rarely seen – to use the language and win the confidence of those outside your natural orbit. The synergies between voluntary and commercial organisations are only just now being explored. Commercial companies are talking to large NGOs about developing business models designed to create jobs in the poorest communities while still making a profit to ensure real sustainability.

Whether the philanthrocapitalist model gains traction will owe much to the extent to which old stereotypes and prejudices can be laid aside in favour of genuine collaboration. Currently the worlds are often too far apart to enable a meaningful conversation.