Addressing Bias Against Fathers

One manner in which anti-feminists (feel free to read as misandrist women haters)  derail feminist arguments is alluding to instances in which women supposedly experience privilege. Following our facebook post on abusive women and malicious mothers, I did some thinking… and reading!

Often, the nay-sayers use the court system – and custody battles in particular – as an example.

It’s true that mothers are more likely to receive custody of their children in a divorce. But the source of the bias is not in the courts – it’s in the marriage.

Straight Marriage Struggles

The institution of straight marriage perpetuates patriarchal gender roles during marriage as well as during its complement, divorce.

The same unfair assumptions that undermine the tradition of straight marriage are the ones that mire their divorces.

Statistically, it appears that the family courts are biased against fathers.

For example, 83% of mothers receive custody of their children in divorces. Additionally, men are awarded less support on average than mothers who are awarded support.

There is also plenty of anectodal evidence citing situations where mothers were awarded custody in spite of fathers demonstrating interest and potential to provide and care for their children.

There are even organizations that exist to protect fathers’ rights.

Unfortunately, these organizations are missing the mark. I think they are even guilty of selective fact finding and misplacing blame on mothers or even on biased courts.

There are three main problems with their arguments:

1. They Draw Incomplete Conclusions from the Divorce Statistics

On the surface, the custody and support averages are skewed toward women.

There are organizations that demonstrate unfair court bias against men with statistics, but they ignore that the outcomes of these institutions are a manifestation of the patriarchy in our very own society.

Even if the courts are biased, they are not biased because they dislike men.

They are biased because they are reflecting the patriarchal notion that men are not meant to be caregivers and that women are not mean to breadwinners.

2. They Demonize Women

Oftentimes, these arguments simply blame women.

Some say nasty (even abusive) mothers manipulate the laws that are already pitched in their favor in order to keep children away from their fathers.

They call this malicious mother syndrome.

Is there some basis for this stereotype? Unfortunately, yes.

But is that the norm? No way.

Saying that all mothers – or even most mothers – who file for divorce want to keep their children from their fathers out of spite with utter disregard for the children’s best interest and relationship is unfair and unfounded.

In fact, the majority of custody settlements – even those that favor the mother – are reached by mutual agreements outside of the courtroom.

That means that both parties agree in these situations that the mother should have custody.

This is also an unfair manifestation of patriarchal gender expectations in marriage – and those expectations are self-imposed.

3. They Value Fathers’ Rights over Children’s Rights

The greatest issue with some of these fathers’ rights organizations is that they put personal rights and interests over the rights of the children.

There are extenuating circumstances when mothers (and fathers) are not suited to be in their children’s lives. But more often than not, children benefit from having both their mother and their father in the picture.

Unfortunately, often these organizations offer methods to minimize child support. That sort of greed has a direct effect on the daily lives of children.

Finally, these organizations advocate for laws that allow abusive fathers to have rights to their children because they believe these laws are manipulated to advantage women.

Not every fathers’ rights group is guilty of this, but many of them are. Although fathers have the right to be involved in their children’s lives, they also need to put the rights and needs of the children before their own.

In lieu of recent fathers’ rights movements, research has surfaced that demonstrates how the family courts hurt women as well. For example, victims of domestic violence are often characterized as unfit for parenting.

Although many of these organizations have terrible means to achieving fathers’ rights, they are motivated by a good central goal: They want to change the assumptions surrounding the role of a father in marriage and divorce.

They do not believe it is fair that more women are receiving custody at higher rates.

And although I disagree with their characterization of the causes of this imbalance, I can empathize with their intentions.

So if the bias against fathers is not coming from the court system, where is it coming from?

Gender Roles

As I mentioned earlier, the majority of these custody agreements are decided outside of a courtroom.

That means that the gender roles that are perpetuated in straight marriage are translating into divorce, often without the force of law.

The truth is: If we are going to equalize straight divorces, we need to equalize straight marriages.

Unfortunately, patriarchal gender norms hurt divorce just as much as they hurt marriage.

Marriages based on equality, lead to better co-parenting after divorce.

If we want to encourage co-parenting during and after divorce, some changes to straight marriage have to occur first:

1. Encourage Fathers to Nurture

One detrimental result of restrictive gender roles is that fathers are discouraged from nurturing their children.

By telling fathers that nurturing is meant for mothers, we are encouraging their absence during pregnancy, birth, and beyond.

Using an evolutionary defense to discourage fathers from bonding with and nurturing their children just creates unnecessarily absent fathers. Countless studies suggest that these assumptions are wrong as well.

In fact, men may even experience hormonal changes once they become fathers in order to facilitate their roles as caregivers.

In order to improve fathers’ relationships with their children after divorce, the relationships need to be stronger during the marriage and encouraging fathers to take on caregiving roles creates the strong relationship.

2. Encourage Mothers Who Want to Have Careers

The same narrow gender roles that keep men from caregiving keep mothers from maintaining their careers.

Women are entitled to choose which caregiver model works best for them.

Some choose to be full time caregivers, and that is awesome!

Others would prefer to continue their careers, and that is also awesome!

Unfortunately, women who choose to stay in their careers are often accused of being bad mothers.

I’m not a mother, but I would think having two involved caregivers has quite some tangible benefits. Not only is the male breadwinner model terribly presumptuous and empirically wrong, it also puts undue pressure on fathers to be sole breadwinners and discourages them from participating in parenting responsibilities.

Even when women choose to be full time caregivers, that does not mean men should not participate. Their relationship with their children is still important – and full-time caregiving mothers need self-care time.

3. Encourage Parents to Share Family and Domestic Responsibilities Equally

Even in families where both parents work, women still spend more hours per week providing primary care.

Men and women are both capable of equal participation in and outside of the home, in order for fathers to be considered equally worthy caregivers in the eyes of the court, they must first be equal caregivers within the home.

Further, most custody arrangements are decided between parents. Fathers must create bonds with their children through caregiving and demonstrate a commitment their children in order to defy the unfair gender stereotypes that define their position in the family.

In fact, studies have shown that when both parents work full-time and mothers are still providing the majority of the housework, they are more likely to be unhappy and seek divorce!

So if we want to change the role of fathers in divorce, we must first address the roles of fathers in the home.

Masculinity and Sole Authenticity

We all need narratives to explain and claim reality. SWAPO's narrative about independence in 1990 has always been that it came through the barrels of guns wielded by heroes, led by the Founding Father himself as a common foot soldier as documented by North Korean artists in that famous snapshot in stone.

We know that many factors, most of them of of a nonviolent kind, contributed to the liberation of our country, SWAPO's diplomatic prowess and good luck certainly is one of them . The consequnces of the hero myth are far from harmless.

The heroic tale celebrated bravery, rightuousness and the spoils of victory but hid the fact that Namibians had come out of the war traumatised and paining. The pains were physical, psychological and moral because in the fight against the enemy one had been made to act like the enemy sometimes. The victors needed cleansing and healing in order to regain their full humanity but got the superhuman treatment instead. The pain had to be shoved back and hidden because it was not supposed to be there at all. So the war survivors had to live with  secrets. Were sons and lovers were expecting love and commitment there was a vacuum, there was a violence that sometimes flared up from unknown sources. Fathers failed to return to their lovers and children after the war.If they did they were not really there. The heroes did not lead by example because they had failed to heal.

A hero myth that is vacuous can easily become fairy tale. When Ronald Reagan became president he had continuously played the war hero in the safe haven of Hollywood while his countrymen were putting their lives on the line. He was convinced to have been a GI Joe and had vivid memories of his own heroic exploits. The Namibians in exile were not all in the trenches, some led a privileged jet-setting life. This, however, did not prevent them from claiming the glory of the sacrificing exile.

Heroism is still seen as a man's thing, in spite of the fact that women played a decisive role in all stages of the liberation struggle, from the Old Location to Cuito Cuanavale, from 1959 to 1989. They were, however, short changed in the celebrations and in the empowerment after the victory. The hero myth bolsters traditional concepts of male dominance and glorifies violence or makes it look acceptable.

BMW Genesis

A beautiful and apparently not yet dressed young woman is facing the camera with half a smile that is accentuated by very glossy red lips. The photographer has used sophisticated lighting techniques that emphasizes her cheeks eyes and shoulders. Her open-palmed hands seem to be caressing her shoulders in almost softporn fashion. This photo is singing the praise of the woman's beauty. The woman's character, however, does not come across. Her beauty is not personal but generic and abstract. She is, however, nice and likeable.

 

The text “You know you are not the first” tells us that she is far from being a virgin and is, indeed, a woman that may have been once or twice around the block. While this makes her a bit of a slut the visual signals contradict that: She is too beautiful and loveable. And the text is from a lover's point of view anyhow. And in another ad there is an additional question: But do you really care?” The answer – on the basis of the visual charm offensive – is clearly NO. This would still be shocking if there had been a change in public opinion. Neither men or women are expected to enter marriage as virgins any longer. Today both men and women go through a stage of sexual experimentation before they tie the knot. There is a hidden consensus about that though it clashes with the family values that people believe in.

The photo is an ad for used BMW cars. It states: A 'pre-owned' woman remains desirable in spite of having lost her maidenhead, So does a sexy car like a pre-owned BMW.

The BMW advertising agency merely copied a Canadian Dale Wurfel ad. That came in two forms a female and a male one: A real man need not be a virgin either.

 

Sister Namibia thinks that the car dealers and the ad artists acted immorally.. Women – and for that matter men – should not be likened to objects for sale. Human relationships like love and friendship have to be mutual and inter-subjective  You are both giver and taker, subject and object. That the object's beauty is stressed does not make being an object more acceptable. Being put on a pedestal is part of turning women into objects.

Sister Namibia is not especially shocked by the ads' cynical acceptance of promiscuity. Most of Namibia's young adults, even adolescents claim the right to be sexually active with whatever partner is available. We support   the right to love men, women or both and to 'shop around' for Mr or Mrs Right.. We, however, do not have the right to be gullible and stupid because we have an obligation to ourselves and, potentially, our children. We have to practice safe sex and mistrust those who want to manipulate us in the name of love, so-called tradition or religion.

 Men's and women's magazines and a whole range of media in cahoots with the commodity, fashion and beauty industry reify (turn into things) and objectify women because it sells.

The advertising industry is not the only culprit,

 In southern Africa the lobola, roora or brideprice are quite widespread and it is a tradition that many women – also highly educated ones – accept. Unfortunately many husbands today believe that a wife they have paid for is their property and demand unacceptable degrees of obedience. As long as this tradition is not either reformed or abolished this means that democracy and gender equality is missing in people's private lives and that new generations are raised in the name of patriarchal rule.

 The three Abrahamic religions – Christianity, Judaism and Islam – share Genesis in the Old Testament presents. Woman is presented as God's gift to man. God said after the act of creation that it was not good that the man was alone, so woman was created out of Adam's rib to be a companion or helper just for man.

 We believe if God intended a gift for man, he should not have given another human being. That would have been akin to slavery. And in the Roman familia that included slaves, the pater familias (father of the family) had the right to kill his wife – and children – just like his slaves.

 What bothers us  about Genesis  is  how that story has been used to place women on pedestals and make them subordinate at the same time. “Oh, but you are a woman. You are too GOOD to have authority. You are too GOOD to have a career. You are too GOOD to have choices. Stay on that pedestal and don't complain because you are on a pedestal.”

 Sister Namibia is not antireligious, antitraditionalist and antifashion. We, however, believe we should not be brainwashed into believing that we are objects and chattel and should not allow anybody to treat us as second-class. We feel, indeed, safer in the hand of (evolutionary) science. That Africa is the Cradle of Humankind and that an African Mitochondrial Eve is at the beginning of human development is something that we think is supportive of the women's cause.

Baby Dumping

Today someone posted on facebook that in the same way girls are criminalised for baby-dumping, the men responsible for the pregnancies should be too. I couldn't believe my eyes as I perused the comments which were along the lines of “women need to learn to take responsibility for their mess after they've spent the money they get from men buying airtime and Brazilian hair”, “Think of the stupid moods women have during that time (pregnancy), not everyone would like to take that nonsense.” (This one came from someone who considers himself a “responsible father” and I guess expects a reward of sorts for staying through the “nonsense”) Another one was “I don’t support men who don’t take their responsibilities as fathers, but if a woman is not being supported by the father of the baby, does that give right to a woman to dump the baby? Baby dumping is killing. If the man is not supportive, there are procedures to be followed to make the man take responsibility. Women dump babies because they want to dump babies.”

I could have pointed out that if we look back in the news reports, the girls dumping their babies are hardly ever the Brazilian weave wearing kind even though I really do not get what that has to do with anything. I could have pointed out that being a parent (a father, to be precise) is about much more than giving out a few hundred dollars. I would have liked to point out the stupidity in the ridiculously flawed thinking that because a woman is “moody” a man is excused in not sticking around. However, that last comment simply has me indignant, “WOMEN DUMP BABIES BECAUSE THEY WANT TO”???

It’s amazing how easily people will paint a woman as the villain without offering any form or concrete support, because the truth is nobody can really “make a man take responsibility”, No one does. I find it rather pretentious when people get on the “women are murderers” bandwagon because then I’m inclined to point out that were women afforded the opportunity to CHOOSE to have safe abortions, we wouldn't have baby dumping as a problem. Anyhow, someone from my church might be reading this and I’ll be dis-fellowshipped for advocating for abortion, so let me stick to baby dumping. See, it’s all good and well to advocate for the life of a child, but what’s to be said about the quality of that life? What will s/he eat? What will s/he wear? And if the girl or woman in question is not prepared for motherhood, what kind of life are we wishing upon this baby? I would think it a bigger sin to bring a child into a world of suffering, knowing you can’t cater for the child, than to not bring her or him into it at all, but apparently not.

I do wish young girls (especially) would be more careful and responsible in their sexual engagements, but I cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that very few women in Namibia have complete autonomy of their sex lives. So more than anything, I wish people would just get off their moral high horses and look at the problems in our society more practically and realistically.

 

When Is A Man A Father?

A man named Alfeus Abraham, in 2010 entered a house in Otjiwarongo with a shotgun and mercilessly followed Eleide Tsaes through the house, eventually shooting her fatally.

Three years after that fateful day, judgment was passed on the matter and Abraham is facing a 30 year jail term with some years suspended. This man, who in cold blood, planned and executed the murder of his then intimate partner, before the sentencing, was hoping for clemency from the court, claiming that he is the father of 33 children, seven of which he apparently paid maintenance for before he killed Tsaes.

Now, I beg you, how can this obviously brutal man make any claim for being a father? What qualifies one to be a father? Surely, there is at lease a  gender-role expectation that goes beyond the anatomical act of procreation if one is to be considered a father. Being a father is a commitment to fatherhood – which implies that there is a relationship with and responsibility towards one’s offspring and that there is a genuine interest and involvement in the care and raising of his offspring. The absence of an interest, commitment and involvement in childcare, in our view, automatically disqualify men from fatherhood.

A  man who so readily can kill a woman with whom he had an intimate relationship with (or anybody else for that matter) can reasonably also be expected to be absent in the raising of “the fruit of his loins.”  Even men who are making legally enforced contributions to the maintenance of their children, but who cannot have a relationship with and care for that child, are not fathers. They merely are mere sperm donors. We have to remember that even a worm can be a sperm donor.

Persons like Alfeus Abraham, unfortunately have come to epitomise what being a “father” is in the Namibian context. This, we believe is the root cause of gender inequality and violence against women. Our children, especially our boys, are taught that men can spawn 33 children without any consequence or responsibility to these children. In fact, more often than not, the so-called fathers are only seen when making further demands on the mothers of these children. Should the woman or multiple women  refuse these demands, or act in ways that are not approved by the sperm donor, he would think nothing to put a bullet/ knife through her/ them. This will happen with zero consideration for that women or the children which she may have from that relationship.

 In conclusion it is absolutely ridiculous for a man like Alfeus Abraham to beg for compassion and moderation from a court on the grounds that he is the father of 33 children. He is not, nor has he ever been a father. He in all likelihood has as much contempt for “his” children as he had had for their mother(s.)  If you cannot mete out compassion and care to your children, by extention to their mothers, then you are not worthy of pity, not from a court of law, and not from society at large. 

Rick Ross Rapist?

You will probably have heard about the Rick Ross controversy concerning his rape lyrics. We have tried to collect the facts and come up with an evaluation that is objective and fair. The lyrics that are debated are these:

Put Molly all in her champagne, she ain't even know it.

I took her home and enjoy that. She ain't even know it.

Molly is the powder or crystal form of MDMA or ecstasy (XTC), an illegal drug. (This drug, by the way, changes mental states but does not knock out users, making them fall asleep or lose consciousness.)

There is no direct reference to sex and rape in the rape but the narrative of the text is like this: Someone – apparently the singer Rick Ross himself – treats a woman to alcohol in a public place and spikes it with a drug that makes her unconscious. He then transports her home and has sex with her in an unconscious state and against her will.

“It” in normal English refers to something that has been mentioned earlier on or to something we point at at the moment. In modern urban slang, however, “do it” means to “have sex”. That is what it means in Chris Brown's song Do It as well. “I'm looking for a girl who gonna do it for me ,, , I'll be turning it up all night.” In modern usage “it” refers to sex,Our reading of the lyrics is therefore correct,

Sex is relatively unproblematic if both partners really want it. In that case what happens to the woman is what the woman wants herself. Such sex is consensual.

In the rap lyrics we hear twice that she does not know it. She accepted the champagne but she did not know that drugs had been added to it. She had sex but did not know that because she was unconscious. Being out of her senses and being in the dark about the man's motives she definitely was not consensual. Non-consensual sex is rape. Sex that only men enjoy – as stated in the lyrics - is rape.

Rick Ross states in a questionable apology that he did not sing about rape and therefore did not propagate rape either, that is not convincing because he repeatedly refers to he non-consensucal aspect of the affair.

That the woman Rick says he slept with was not a virgin and was not hurt in the process and, hopefully, not impregnated or infected with STDs does not improve things. He does not condemn the activity described by him. He even tells or orders the audience to follow suit: “Put Molly all in her champagne!”

The feminist group Ultra Violet has protested against the song and asked Reebok that uses Rick as an advertising celebrity to scrap his employment and his fat pay cheques.

The media ensure that Rick Ross in the distant USA is a next door neighbour in Namibia. Young Namibian men may very well idolize Rick Ross and what he stands for. If Molly is less available here, Namibian men have long considered alcohol as a self-control reducer that you use to make women less willing and able to resist male sexual advances. Some even think that such gifts of alcohol are a down payment on sex and an entitlement to demand surrender. In such a mindset the step to spiking drinks for date rape is not very far.

We find it impossible to like Rick Ross.

We are especially disgusted by Rick's so-called apology:

"Woman is the most precious gift known to man.  I would never use the term 'rape' in my records and as far as my camp, Hip-hop don't condone that, the streets don't condone that, nobody condones that. So I just wanted to reach out to all my queens that's on my timeline, all the sexy ladies, the beautiful ladies that have been reaching out to me with the misunderstanding: We don't condone rape, and I'm not with that.”

Women are not gifts and thus merely objects, Women are givers – givers of care, love and life when giving is the right thing to do. We are not gifts whether glossy luxury consumption articles or wares from the cheap Chinese corner shop.

Sister Namibia wants gender equality. We do not want a place on a pedestal as greatest gift to man, queens, sexy and beautiful ladies. We do not want a place under man's foot. We want the place and respect that everybody is entitled to.

Rick's pedestal and praise for women the wonderful is especially insincere because this is a pedestal that still fits under a man's foot. The sexy lady is there for man's arousal and satisfaction. The lady's beauty makes her a trophy woman that man can brag about among his mates. Queens, not surprisingly, is often used as a synonym for prostitute or – in rap lingo – ho.

Thanks for the compliment, Rick, but we don't want it.

In soccer, racist remarks and gestures by players and audiences are taken very seriously and are punished quite harshly, We think it is about time that the entertainment and advertising industry starts punishing sexist offenders. They can be excluded from advertising contracts, Grammy /Awards, airplay. Colleagues can boycott offenders. But that does not seem to be happening. At the moment, racism and sexism are not treated with equal contempt. Discrimination because of race is as bad as discrimination because of gender. It is unacceptable that bad-boy musicians get the boys-will-be-boys treatment. Otherwise we might as well live with a 'racists will be racists' attitude.

On Our Culture Of Violence

I just got off the phone with someone who shares our concern with the apparently escalating incidences of violence against women and girls in this country.

The caller was not certain whether violence against women really is on the rise or whether it is just that reporting on this issue is increasing. Perhaps he has a point there. In my mind, however, this country is rooted in a culture in which violence against anybody considered to be an underdog was widely accepted and condoned. Dark-skinned people were taught that there was a social hierarchy and that we had to know our places in that hierarchy. Failure to know where you belong, inevitably, would result in the full wrath and violence allowable to the system and the state. Many lost their lives in that manner.

That system of state violence by necessity had to sanction all other forms of violence against those under-dogs of the underdogs who did not know their place and rank in that dog eat dog world also. This – as a trade off - allowed or tolerated black men perpetrating all forms of violence against their women.  So within a violent system, sub-systems of oppression and subjugation flourished. The black man who was picked upon and dominated at his work place, went home and beat up his wife and children. It was not uncommon for groups of young men to frequent parties where girls and young women were targeted for gang rapes. Reporting these abuses were futile – for the attitude was that the woman was looking for it. Boys saw that this was how a man behaved, and now, that they are grown men themselves, are perpetuating their this “culture” in their own homes, relationships and society.   Unfortunately, no women or girl can be sure that her male friends will not rape or kill her – should she join them for a drink as in the case of Melody Urikhos murdered by her supposed friend.

 This time, the person on the other side of the line argues, it is because the majority of men are disempowered and marginalised socially and economically and that this is one of the reasons why men are raping and killing. However, while I agree wholeheartedly that it is WRONG that the majority of people in this country are excluded from participating and benefitting from the wealth that clearly exists in this country, I refuse to see this as a significant contributing factor to the spate of killings, rape and disrespect that seems to be so rife in this society. For if this argument is true, women should also feature significantly as perpetrators (at least towards children and the elderly – who in the “grander” scheme of things are even more marginalised than we are.) Also, one would then not expect any form of gender-based violence among the “haves” of this country. How would one then explain Selma Shaimemanya’s murder in which Lazarus Shaduka is implicated?

No, unfortunately I think there is something fundamentally wrong in Namibia. We have allowed a culture of sexism and hate to become the dominant culture. Just like racism is maintained through the indiscriminate use of violence by one population group against another , so the pillars that uphold sexism are also violence, subjugation, and robbing women of our basic right to respect and dignity.