In this conversation, I sit down with Stephen Baskerville and Rick Bradford to explore a provocative idea: could father custody be the key to addressing many of the injustices men face?
There are perhaps two maternal forces at play to deny separated fathers' involvement in a child's life post-separation/divorce.
The first is what is known as maternal gatekeeping.
The second is the female use of relational aggression, by alienating the father from partaking in a parenting role it punishes the father emotionally and psychologically. Relational aggression is aimed punishing the father.
While it is true that historically, fatherhood is enabled and granted by marriage, these days we have cheaply available DNA testing that can easily mean that fathers also can derive a biological advantage.
Statistical analysis I was involved with showed that people attending genetic testing (which would remain secret from all) were wrong in naming their genetic father for over 14% of the time. Let me emphasise that: one in seven of us, when we state who our genetic father is, will be incorrect. An ever greater amount of medical care depends upon what ones genetic parents have experienced.
If fatherhood is an automatic right to ones child, then marriage should certainly confirm it. Cheap DNA testing at birth, which is to the advantage of the child throughout its life, should be standard, and informed to both parents. That then enables a man to decide if he wants to be a father to a child that is not his.
Thanks for this Douglas. I have wondered about that stat. I worry that those who came for testing might have been closer to certain that something was amiss than the general public. I have heard estimates higher than the 14% and wish that, as Mike says below, that we had mandatory testing at birth. That would tell us exactly the percentage....but it also might highly discourage women from doing it in the first place. busted!
Thanks Douglas, interesting. Are you able to give more details on that "statistical analysis", and why were people "attending genetic testing"?
Since establishing J4MB as a political party in 2013 (we remained one for 10 years) we have called for mandatory paternity testing at birth. If that were done, THEN we'd know the true rate of paternity fraud or at least the rate at the time, given that many women will then have been deterred from committing it. DNA testing is indeed "cheap" when we compare it to the cost to men of mis-attributed paternity.
Paternity fraud is one of the most egregious of crimes - implicitly illegal under the Fraud Act 2006 - but of course the Crown has never brought any prosecutions for it, despite many thousands of women every year having being identified after men successfully challenged their alleged paternity after claims for financial support. My hunch is most men in such circumstances simple assume financial responsibility, even if they have doubts.
I can't say too much about the work I was doing but it was gene testing in the UK where subjects with a condition were asked if they would take part in a genetic trial to see if an hereditary link could be established. Subjects with the condition were asked to provide the details of their genetic parents.
The whole programme was very professionally operated with extreme thoughtfulness and care for everyone who took part. No information about anything discovered during the trial was to be provided back to those taking part. It was purely voluntary and any of the three being tested (the subject, the named genetic mother, the named genetic father) could refuse or withdraw at any time without reason and even their withdrawal would not be communicated to the other two.
So, to be clear: this was medical, not legal, testing. This was gene testing where it was clear in the opening letter to those being invited to take part that they could refuse at first, or attend and refuse, and nobody would be any the wiser of their actions.
Of those subjects with the people named as genetic parents who all went ahead with the tests, 14% of the subjects were not related to the man they named as their genetic father. This was not a surprise to the medical team running the tests.
Whether a man knowing he is not the genetic father would be more or less likely to take part is not part of my knowledge. Common sense tells me he would abort, perhaps attend the clinic and and then refuse, if he knew.
This leads me to conclude that one in seven of us, when asked to name our genetic father, will name the wrong man. That is not quite the same as saying one seventh of men's children are not related to them but - again using common sense - it is going to be a close figure.
Thanks Douglas, fascinating! Hopefully you'd be OK with me drawing content from your comments to post a blog piece suggesting the true rate of "mis-attribution of paternity" in the UK could be close to 1 in 7? Can you give a year for this? Thanks.
I think that was understood. The reality is that when the parents become irreconciable the family is going to broken regardless of who the children end up with. That is why the better parent should be he default...not the mother. Part of the problem is that both men and women often make poor marriage decisions which become toxic. Once children are in the mix, harm is inevitable. I do agree that if women were not given the default of getting the children, it would incentivize less selfishness and more willingness to work through problems. No fault divorce is a bad idea as there is always fault and almost always it is more on one side than the other.
Given the massive failure of women lacking custody to pay child support, there is clearly a strong basis to argue that maybe women are NOT the best to be in charge of children in cases of divorce. The best interests of the children should be the primary consideration.
The discussion that follows this reminds me of an esssential point I failed to make on the show. (And I am sure I do not have to tell you that this is about much more than child support.)
Father custody has nothing to do with single fathers being better parents than single mothers (and no government offiical has any business making such a judgement about which parent is "better") . Father custody is about keeping families together. Mother custody means evicting the father and raising the children as a single mother. Father custody does not mean evicting the mother. It means that if she wants to leave without proving some very serious grounds, then she leaves by herself; the children stay with the father. Given that mothers are the moving party in virtually 100% of divorces with children, this will certainly stabilize not only families but society.
Official data from the US Census Bureau and other governmental studies indicate that women, while a minority among child support payers, have a higher rate of defaulting on payments than men when they are the noncustodial parent. In 2011, 32% of custodial fathers did not receive any of the child support that had been awarded to them, compared to 25% of custodial mothers not receiving their support, meaning that noncustodial mothers are more likely to default than noncustodial fathers on a proportional basis, even though the absolute numbers remain much smaller due to far fewer noncustodial mothers overall.
I hear it is about 50% of men are in arrears/default where they owe child support. For women lacking custody, default is 95%.
As an example, my own half sister lost joint custody of her kids when she failed to show up to court and her lawyer filed the paperwork to cease representing her for her systemic dishonesty. (This "mother" took her 3 and 5 year old to participate in the Women's Marches against Donald Trump, de-friended me and stopped talking to me because I suggested posting pictures bragging about taking minor children to a political march WHILE in a custody battle might not be a good idea.) She left the state following a prospective boyfriend (new husband) she hoped to catch to support her. For 7 years she has not paid a penny of child support for her kids in California who live with their father and grandmother. She refuses to pay child support unless she receives alimony to which she is NOT entitled given that she already took half of her ex-husband's retirement funds and the family car while the kids do NOT live with her, thus not impeding her ability to work. (He of course, was required to work to support the kids even when they were young and living with him and his mother in HER house.) This sister has avoided above board jobs to avoid the state of California garnishing her wages. She moved in on our mother 2 years ago, mooching off the women's social security until our mother passed away unexpectedly from an aneurysm. She then tried to claim the house, car and all the assets as her personal property (despite having 2 of us siblings). When we all discovered that our mother had a reverse mortgage and the house would need to be bought back from the bank or sold, she complained that I should have been paying the reverse mortgage for our mother (which I did not know about, let alone have the resources to do). She then tried to get a mortgage for the house but lacking a formal employment track record and with multiple evictions, tax debt and $30,000 in unpaid child support on her record, she was laughed out of the bank. She then refused to leave the house claiming she was a "tenant" and said any buyer of the property (required by the reverse mortgage holder) would have to rent to her. They declined this and my full sister as executor had to evict her to get her out so the bank would not foreclose. In the meantime she took an above board job...and the state of California just started garnishing her wages!
Did I mention that this half sister is a staunch feminist? Did I have to?
The story is sadder than the part I shared here...and it is entirely based on how feminism empowers narcissism and antisocial conduct among women and prevents the appropriate corrective action that criticism and shaming would impart to a man who misbehaved in that way. Women are the first victims of feminism after all!
Somehow I missed this when it was first published, but I'm glad I found it even two months late. Two of the most knowledgeable men on men's issues--what a cracking discussion, sobering and saddening but also heartening and energizing. I so appreciate the humanity and wisdom being shared here. There are many points worth addressing, but one somewhat minor one really struck a chord with me. Yes, we will have to bring back stigma, uncomfortable-making and counter-intuitive as that is. We can't uphold the institution of marriage as the guarantor of paternity without condemning its dissolution. Yikes, that one hits home.
There are perhaps two maternal forces at play to deny separated fathers' involvement in a child's life post-separation/divorce.
The first is what is known as maternal gatekeeping.
The second is the female use of relational aggression, by alienating the father from partaking in a parenting role it punishes the father emotionally and psychologically. Relational aggression is aimed punishing the father.
While it is true that historically, fatherhood is enabled and granted by marriage, these days we have cheaply available DNA testing that can easily mean that fathers also can derive a biological advantage.
Statistical analysis I was involved with showed that people attending genetic testing (which would remain secret from all) were wrong in naming their genetic father for over 14% of the time. Let me emphasise that: one in seven of us, when we state who our genetic father is, will be incorrect. An ever greater amount of medical care depends upon what ones genetic parents have experienced.
If fatherhood is an automatic right to ones child, then marriage should certainly confirm it. Cheap DNA testing at birth, which is to the advantage of the child throughout its life, should be standard, and informed to both parents. That then enables a man to decide if he wants to be a father to a child that is not his.
Thanks for this Douglas. I have wondered about that stat. I worry that those who came for testing might have been closer to certain that something was amiss than the general public. I have heard estimates higher than the 14% and wish that, as Mike says below, that we had mandatory testing at birth. That would tell us exactly the percentage....but it also might highly discourage women from doing it in the first place. busted!
Please see my response to Mike.
Thanks Douglas, interesting. Are you able to give more details on that "statistical analysis", and why were people "attending genetic testing"?
Since establishing J4MB as a political party in 2013 (we remained one for 10 years) we have called for mandatory paternity testing at birth. If that were done, THEN we'd know the true rate of paternity fraud or at least the rate at the time, given that many women will then have been deterred from committing it. DNA testing is indeed "cheap" when we compare it to the cost to men of mis-attributed paternity.
Paternity fraud is one of the most egregious of crimes - implicitly illegal under the Fraud Act 2006 - but of course the Crown has never brought any prosecutions for it, despite many thousands of women every year having being identified after men successfully challenged their alleged paternity after claims for financial support. My hunch is most men in such circumstances simple assume financial responsibility, even if they have doubts.
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS http://j4mb.org.uk
CAMPAIGN FOR MERIT IN BUSINESS http://c4mb.uk
LAUGHING AT FEMINISTS http://laughingatfeminists.com
I can't say too much about the work I was doing but it was gene testing in the UK where subjects with a condition were asked if they would take part in a genetic trial to see if an hereditary link could be established. Subjects with the condition were asked to provide the details of their genetic parents.
The whole programme was very professionally operated with extreme thoughtfulness and care for everyone who took part. No information about anything discovered during the trial was to be provided back to those taking part. It was purely voluntary and any of the three being tested (the subject, the named genetic mother, the named genetic father) could refuse or withdraw at any time without reason and even their withdrawal would not be communicated to the other two.
So, to be clear: this was medical, not legal, testing. This was gene testing where it was clear in the opening letter to those being invited to take part that they could refuse at first, or attend and refuse, and nobody would be any the wiser of their actions.
Of those subjects with the people named as genetic parents who all went ahead with the tests, 14% of the subjects were not related to the man they named as their genetic father. This was not a surprise to the medical team running the tests.
Whether a man knowing he is not the genetic father would be more or less likely to take part is not part of my knowledge. Common sense tells me he would abort, perhaps attend the clinic and and then refuse, if he knew.
This leads me to conclude that one in seven of us, when asked to name our genetic father, will name the wrong man. That is not quite the same as saying one seventh of men's children are not related to them but - again using common sense - it is going to be a close figure.
Thanks Douglas, fascinating! Hopefully you'd be OK with me drawing content from your comments to post a blog piece suggesting the true rate of "mis-attribution of paternity" in the UK could be close to 1 in 7? Can you give a year for this? Thanks.
Simply outstanding. Thank you all.
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS http://j4mb.org.uk
CAMPAIGN FOR MERIT IN BUSINESS http://c4mb.uk
LAUGHING AT FEMINISTS http://laughingatfeminists.com
Thanks Mike!
I think that was understood. The reality is that when the parents become irreconciable the family is going to broken regardless of who the children end up with. That is why the better parent should be he default...not the mother. Part of the problem is that both men and women often make poor marriage decisions which become toxic. Once children are in the mix, harm is inevitable. I do agree that if women were not given the default of getting the children, it would incentivize less selfishness and more willingness to work through problems. No fault divorce is a bad idea as there is always fault and almost always it is more on one side than the other.
Given the massive failure of women lacking custody to pay child support, there is clearly a strong basis to argue that maybe women are NOT the best to be in charge of children in cases of divorce. The best interests of the children should be the primary consideration.
The discussion that follows this reminds me of an esssential point I failed to make on the show. (And I am sure I do not have to tell you that this is about much more than child support.)
Father custody has nothing to do with single fathers being better parents than single mothers (and no government offiical has any business making such a judgement about which parent is "better") . Father custody is about keeping families together. Mother custody means evicting the father and raising the children as a single mother. Father custody does not mean evicting the mother. It means that if she wants to leave without proving some very serious grounds, then she leaves by herself; the children stay with the father. Given that mothers are the moving party in virtually 100% of divorces with children, this will certainly stabilize not only families but society.
Do you know the breakdown of the numbers for women defaulting vs men? Would love to see that.
Official data from the US Census Bureau and other governmental studies indicate that women, while a minority among child support payers, have a higher rate of defaulting on payments than men when they are the noncustodial parent. In 2011, 32% of custodial fathers did not receive any of the child support that had been awarded to them, compared to 25% of custodial mothers not receiving their support, meaning that noncustodial mothers are more likely to default than noncustodial fathers on a proportional basis, even though the absolute numbers remain much smaller due to far fewer noncustodial mothers overall.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-moms-less-likely-than-dads-to-pay-child-support/
https://www.npr.org/2015/03/01/389945311/who-fails-to-pay-child-support-moms-at-a-higher-rate-than-dads
Thanks Douglas - Can we use the term Deadbeat Mom???? lol That wouldn't go far....
To use the words Dead, Beat and Mom in a sentence together would be seen as incitement to violence against women by feminists!
The Urban Dictionary has has the phrase for over twenty years…
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=deadbeat%20mom
I hear it is about 50% of men are in arrears/default where they owe child support. For women lacking custody, default is 95%.
As an example, my own half sister lost joint custody of her kids when she failed to show up to court and her lawyer filed the paperwork to cease representing her for her systemic dishonesty. (This "mother" took her 3 and 5 year old to participate in the Women's Marches against Donald Trump, de-friended me and stopped talking to me because I suggested posting pictures bragging about taking minor children to a political march WHILE in a custody battle might not be a good idea.) She left the state following a prospective boyfriend (new husband) she hoped to catch to support her. For 7 years she has not paid a penny of child support for her kids in California who live with their father and grandmother. She refuses to pay child support unless she receives alimony to which she is NOT entitled given that she already took half of her ex-husband's retirement funds and the family car while the kids do NOT live with her, thus not impeding her ability to work. (He of course, was required to work to support the kids even when they were young and living with him and his mother in HER house.) This sister has avoided above board jobs to avoid the state of California garnishing her wages. She moved in on our mother 2 years ago, mooching off the women's social security until our mother passed away unexpectedly from an aneurysm. She then tried to claim the house, car and all the assets as her personal property (despite having 2 of us siblings). When we all discovered that our mother had a reverse mortgage and the house would need to be bought back from the bank or sold, she complained that I should have been paying the reverse mortgage for our mother (which I did not know about, let alone have the resources to do). She then tried to get a mortgage for the house but lacking a formal employment track record and with multiple evictions, tax debt and $30,000 in unpaid child support on her record, she was laughed out of the bank. She then refused to leave the house claiming she was a "tenant" and said any buyer of the property (required by the reverse mortgage holder) would have to rent to her. They declined this and my full sister as executor had to evict her to get her out so the bank would not foreclose. In the meantime she took an above board job...and the state of California just started garnishing her wages!
Did I mention that this half sister is a staunch feminist? Did I have to?
Whoo boy. Such a sad story.
The story is sadder than the part I shared here...and it is entirely based on how feminism empowers narcissism and antisocial conduct among women and prevents the appropriate corrective action that criticism and shaming would impart to a man who misbehaved in that way. Women are the first victims of feminism after all!
Somehow I missed this when it was first published, but I'm glad I found it even two months late. Two of the most knowledgeable men on men's issues--what a cracking discussion, sobering and saddening but also heartening and energizing. I so appreciate the humanity and wisdom being shared here. There are many points worth addressing, but one somewhat minor one really struck a chord with me. Yes, we will have to bring back stigma, uncomfortable-making and counter-intuitive as that is. We can't uphold the institution of marriage as the guarantor of paternity without condemning its dissolution. Yikes, that one hits home.