Separation and
divorce destroy children's lives.
It helps to remember this because
of the vast industry now devoted to
what has been called "good divorce."
This is the trend that seems intent
on making divorce palatable and letting
parents feel good about destroying
their children's home. At best this
is damage control. It is impossible
to insulate children from the damage
caused by the destruction of their
families. Those who pretend we can
are lying to themselves and to us.
Moreover, the traumas of divorce are
almost all exacerbated by litigation.
Worse, they are all exacerbated when
one parent — usually the father —
is marginalized from the children,
as is now almost invariably the case.
The
reasons why separation and divorce
damage children are too numerous to
mention. But from the standpoint of
fatherhood politics, the most important
reasons involve authority.
The
very act of separation and divorce,
aside from any accompanying behavior
or words, itself sends a myriad of
terrible messages to children. It
says that parents can put their own
wishes above the welfare of their
children. This is obviously a bad
example, which the children can then
carry on to their own families. But
a perhaps worse effect is to destroy
parental authority. No parent who
has put himself or herself before
their child in such a basic way has
any moral authority to instruct, correct,
or discipline a child. How can parents
instill lessons of selflessness in
children when their own actions demonstrate
precisely the opposite?
More
specifically, it destroys notions
of trust, obligation, and fidelity
in the child, qualities basic to any
family. In effect it says that it
is okay to break promises and obligations
such as marriage vows when they no
longer suit our convenience, it is
okay to make up the rules as we go
along and, in effect, live by no principles
except those that suit our momentary
convenience. Again, how can parents
instill an ethic of fidelity, obligation,
and trust when their own actions manifest
the contrary?
Even
more fundamentally, it destroys the
integrity of the family itself. The
act of separation and divorce says
that a family is not something from
which the child can derive a sense
of unconditional love and security.
On the contrary, a family can be disbanded
at any time at the whim of one member.
Even more, it says that a family member
can be disgraced and expelled. Especially
when it is unilateral (as it increasingly
is) and when one parent is marginalized
from the children's lives, the effect
is the expulsion of a family member.
This is the destruction of the child's
entire world and the source of unimaginable
terror to a child. If Daddy can be
pushed out of the family, after all,
what about me? What security is there
in my family if members can be expelled
because they do something Mommy or
someone else doesn't like? What if
I do something Mommy doesn't like?
What is the meaning of Mommy's or
Daddy's love if it can be terminated
when it is no longer convenient?
Finally,
litigation against family members
exacerbates and in effect politicizes
these messages. It says that the state
is a legitimate instrument to punish
the child's loved one who has fallen
out of favor. It says that rather
than solving problems as a family,
we declare a member to be a public
enemy and bring the power of the state
to bear on him. In an almost literal
sense, we declare civil war on our
loved ones. Again, if the police can
be used to keep Daddy away or throw
him in jail because Mommy no longer
likes him, what will they do to me?
Perhaps
from the political standpoint, the
most significant lesson for the child
is the firsthand experience of tyranny
and oppression, both in society and
within his own family. The custodial
parent becomes a kind of satrap of
the court, and the dictatorship of
the court over the family is extended
and writ small within the family.
The custodial parent tyrannizes over
the non-custodial parent, undermining
his authority, dictating the terms
of his access to the children, talking
to him contemptuously and condescendingly
as if he were himself a naughty child,
perhaps engaging in a full scale campaign
of vilification (which similarly mirrors
the larger campaign against fathers
waged by the state and media). After
witnessing this against the non-custodial
parent, the children then experience
it themselves. With no checks on the
power of the custodial parent, the
tyranny is naturally exercised over
them as well. In extreme (but not
uncommon) cases of course this leads
to child abuse.
All
these messages concern authority —
parental authority, paternal authority,
political authority — and therefore
they are of primary interest to fathers.
When
a father participates in separation
and divorce, when he engages in litigation,
when he even acquiesces in them, he
too is sending these messages to his
children. When a father takes part
in these actions he is participating
in the destruction of his own authority.
He is taking part in the destruction
of his own fatherhood.
Certainly
there are times when we must resort
to the courts just to be permitted
to see our children. But in the long
run when we rely on these means, when
we allow them to dictate the terms
and place of the struggle, we lose
and so do our children. Even when
these actions are undertaken by our
spouses unilaterally, the child is
receiving the same message. Then it
is up to us alone to provide a positive
counter-message.
The
literature on "good divorce"
offers no rebuttals to these messages.
There is a more effective and more
constructive alternative.
The Political
Alternative
The
alternative is to become active politically
for the defense of our children and
families.
I know
this idea immediately raises red flags
among many. Images come to mind of
strident "activists" (like
the dreaded feminists perhaps) screeching
about their "rights." Many
men are uncomfortable in this role,
in which they have never before seen
themselves. Our political world has
become such a plethora of competing
interest groups all trying to grab
their share of the pie that we have
forgotten what political action has
done to relieve the truly oppressed.
More
serious is the common assumption among
men that working politically for the
rights of fathers and children will
divert time and energy from their
own individual legal cases and reduce
time with their own children while
resulting in few tangible benefits
in terms of winning custody or increasing
visitation. This is a natural assumption,
but it is not true.
In fact
the opposite is true. Political involvement
may be the best thing you can do for
your own case and for your own children.
Moreover it will be beneficial to
you and your children immediately,
even if you never achieve the stated
goals. It is more effective than all
the touchy-feely advice you will get
from therapists. And it is more constructive
than all the legal help from the scavengers
of the divorce industry. This is less
because of what it gives than what
it demands: It requires qualities
that are directly necessary to fathers
who have been through desertion, separation,
divorce, false accusations, and the
rest. Most importantly, it carries
messages that can help heal the traumas
of children who are suffering from
separation and divorce.
Here
are some of the direct and immediate
benefits of political action:
Political
action establishes authority. If you
have gone through a desertion, separation,
or divorce — especially if your child
was abducted from your home or you
have been accused of some kind of
abuse — your authority as a father
has been largely destroyed. Even fathers
in intact families have felt their
authority take quite a drubbing these
days, largely owing to the anti-male
climate. If your wife has placed her
desires before her children's welfare
by destroying their home, she too
no longer has any moral authority
to correct a child. Political action
gives you the authority of one who
has taken the moral high ground and
acts out of principle along with others
through constructive means for the
welfare and establishment of his family
and his society.
Political
action confers dignity. When you lost
your children you lost your dignity
and received the stigma of the "evil
male." You unexpectedly joined
the ranks of "abusers,"
"batterers," and "deadbeat
dads." Suddenly all those things
you assumed about others are being
assumed about you. You "must
have" done something to deserve
losing your children. This is a very
difficult stigma to remove, and you
won't eliminate it by cowering behind
a lawyer. Men do not hire someone
else to fight their battles. Standing
up for your rights and those of your
children is a way of proclaiming to
the world that you have nothing to
be ashamed of and that you have done
nothing wrong.
Properly
understood, political action is not
shrill or strident. It is the dignified
but uncompromising demand for civil
rights: the right to be fathers to
your children. No political movement
ever has lasting success without dignity,
and fathers will get nowhere unless
they show dignity both in their families
and before the world. No doubt you
have already discovered that in the
home it is up to you to act maturely
and not to quarrel with your spouse,
because of the bias in the courts
and because your spouse probably has
no incentive to be restrained. Why
not take this one step further into
the public realm and forego the quarrel
of a court battle? The same principle
applies. We don't have to hide our
actions from our children or anyone
else because they are ugly, undignified,
shameful, or vicious — as, for example,
is beating up on our spouse in a courtroom
with a hired goon. We are acting openly
in the public realm. We are asking
for justice in the court of public
opinion. Nothing could be more dignified.
Political
action will make you a better father.
The qualities necessary for being
an effective political activist are
the same as those necessary for a
good father: sobriety, commitment,
fidelity, sacrifice. Demanding your
just rights is not a license for belligerence;
quite the opposite. All great revolutionary
leaders were moral puritans who saw
the need for self-discipline. Lenin
used to inveigh against libertine
communists who would substitute talk
for action and initiate a dozen tasks
and never complete any. If you don't
like this comparison, consider Oliver
Cromwell, who "conquered himself"
before he conquered his enemies. Frederick
Douglass gave up drinking because
he saw it was the most effective method
of slaveholders to keep his people
in bondage. Martin Luther King used
to speak of the need for "self-purification"
prior to action. The principle is
simple: self-government requires self-control.
Alcohol, gambling, womanizing, frivolous
pastimes are incompatible with republican
virtue. If you can't give up your
sports page or your evenings in front
of the TV, your girlie magazines or
your nights out with the lads, you're
no use as a fathers' rights activist.
You're also probably not the world's
greatest father.
Political
action is an effective alternative
to violence. Without lending credence
to the hysteria over "male violence,"
let us grant for the sake of argument
that fathers may be tempted to become
violent when their children are taken
away (who wouldn't?). If you find
disturbing thoughts suddenly appearing
in your head when they take your children,
channel it into peaceful and constructive
but determined activity for your children.
Martin Luther King used to observe
that violence in the black ghettoes
decreased significantly following
political demonstrations. Involvement
in fathers' rights is an effective
way of channeling rage that might
otherwise fuel domestic violence.
Political
action shows your child you care.
You may be caught in the vicious circle
of being ordered to stay away from
your children by a judge and as a
result having them think you don't
love them because you're not there.
This is their natural conclusion and
could be exacerbated by Mom's poison.
You can't tell them it's because of
Mommy or the Evil Judge that you aren't
there, and you shouldn't; even if
you could it wouldn't matter. Children
judge by actions, not words. On the
other hand, once your children witness
you exercising your civic duty and
your constitutional rights on their
behalf and on behalf of other fathers
and children, they will eventually
understand why. They will realize
that political action requires sacrifice,
and they will admire you all the more
and profit from your example. You
are also telling the world that your
children are so special that their
father is willing to sacrifice everything
for them.
Political
action is an excellent education for
your children. Some fathers feel they
must not involve their children in
their quarrel and fear they may be
punished for it. But this is true
only because the conflict is personal
and litigious; in other words, because
it is shameful. Children should always
be spared the trauma of quarreling
parents and animosity between spouses,
whether at home or in court. But exercising
your civic rights — indeed, fulfilling
your duty as a citizen — is a different
matter entirely. This is something
your children should see. We make
enormous efforts in schools, churches,
and civic organizations, teaching
children about civic involvement,
about constitutional rights and the
importance of cultivating a public
spirit and of sacrificing private
desires for the larger public good.
We introduce them to the teachings
of Socrates, Thoreau, Gandhi, and
Martin Luther King. Yet when it comes
to putting their ideas into practice
by following their example, we are
told this is somehow "inappropriate."
In contrast to litigation, when we
undertake political action we are
not fighting our children's mothers;
we are fighting injustice. What could
be more inspiring than to emulate
these men on behalf of your children?
Children know that actions speak louder
than words. The lesson that civic
action requires sacrifice, and must
be undertaken with dignity, is both
edifying for them and something that
will make them proud of their father.
Finally,
political action will provide your
children with the spiritual tools
they need to cope with family breakdown.
This may not be obvious, yet it is
true. But only if it is based on dignity,
sacrifice, and love. A politics of
hate, vengeance, and demonization
is not a fit lesson for children.
But a politics of love and non-violence
has its origins in the same spiritual
values we try to instill in our children
in school and in church. No child
is too young to learn this lesson.
If you take your children to Sunday
school (and many people feel this
is an important duty of a father,
even if he himself has previously
not been religious), you will be exposing
them to the courageous acts of the
Hebrew women, of Shedrach, Meshach,
and Abednego, of Jesus himself. These
figures demonstrated precisely the
qualities children of divorce more
than others need to see. Teach them
about sacrifice for others, about
commitment to a cause, about obligation
as citizens, about the power of moral
authority, about love to those who
hate us, about fidelity to principles
larger than themselves.
Martin
Luther King, the leading American
practitioner of non-violence, used
to talk about the latent violence
in the system of state-enforced segregation
and of the need for a "creative
tension" to bring this violence
out into the open. We have a similar
task. A latent violence already pervades
our families which are in effect occupied
by the instruments of the state forcibly
separating us from our children. We
must extract the violence from the
system, and we must be prepared to
suffer violence ourselves, but we
must use none. At some point we may
have to adopt Ghandi's principle:
"Fill up the jails."
No doubt
you will be accused of dragging your
children into the quarrel. But non-violent
political action shifts the quarrel
away from the person to the injustice.
Our children are already at the center
of the quarrel. The have already been
dragged in as the chief victims by
the belligerent parent and by the
state that has invaded their family
and set up a kind of domestic apartheid
between the custodial parent and the
child, on the one hand, and the non-custodial
parent. Martin Luther King writes
boldly and eloquently of how, despite
the false pathos of those who "deplored
our 'using' our children in this fashion...the
introduction of Birmingham's children
into the [non-violent civil rights]
campaign was one of the wisest moves
we made."
It is
an illusion to pretend that we can
shelter our children from a quarrel
of which they are at the center and
which by its very nature is constantly
damaging them. What is important is
not that they be sheltered from it
but that they be provided with the
tools to deal with it and with any
crisis constructively. On their own
what they will adopt are the tools
of withdrawal, guilt, aggression,
alienation, or any number of other
symptoms of divorce that have become
all too familiar. No matter how careful
you are they will also absorb your
hostility as well as that of your
spouse.
The
touchy-feely proponents of "good
divorce" are right as far as
they go when they tell us to how to
mitigate these and suggest we "talk"
to our children to mitigate these
emotions. They suggest you tell your
children, "No matter what we
do to one another, your Mommy and
I still love you." But consciously
or not, the child knows, "but
not enough to keep my home together."
You are supposed to tell your child,
"What's happening between Mommy
and me is not your fault." But
the child knows that she is the center
and "cause" of the quarrel.
Talk is cheap, and children know it.
No amount of talk, contact group jargon,
or therapy sessions is going to save
children from the traumas of what
their parents do. What we can do is
give them the tools to overcome them
and to act. These are partly spiritual,
but they are also political.
The
Bible and the Koran teach that we
are all guilty of sin. Creative non-violence
teaches that we are all responsible
for society's injustices. Choose the
value system you prefer. The point
is that these religious and political
values teach us how we and our children
can channel our inadequacies, real
and imagined, into constructive action.
We should
tell our children that we all do bad
things. We are all sinners, or we
are all responsible for society's
injustices, or however you prefer
to phrase it. We cannot avoid guilt.
What we can do is be sorry for the
bad things we do and ask forgiveness.
What we can do is forgive those who
do bad things to us. What we can do
is to love the person while hating
the evil they do — the message of
Christianity, Islam, civil disobedience,
creative non-violence, and every other
humane doctrine. We can teach them
what the Bible, Gandhi, and Martin
Luther King all taught: that "unmerited
suffering is redemptive." We
can teach them the one central principle
of both religion and political action:
that salvation requires sacrifice.
If we strive toward this, we will
not only have happy, well-adjusted
children in spite of the belligerence
they witness in others; we may just
be permitted to be fathers to them
again. Or perhaps I should say that
from that moment we again will be
fathers.
Prof.
Stephen Baskerville teaches political
science at Howard University and is
the author of
Not Peace But a Sword: The Political
Theology of the English Revolution
.
Department of Political Science
Howard
University
Washington, DC 20059
Telephone: (202) 806-7267
E-mail:
baskerville@starpower.net
|