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