[Marius Janse van Rensburg]

this in from mike

Hi All

I've done a bit of research on why fathers are not regarded as capable parents

It all started after the war when a psychologist named Bowlby did some research on childhood attachment.  His primary research was on children whose early childhood had been spent in hostels and hospitals. His major findings were that it is a natural instinct for a child to form a primary bond with a primary care giver. He also found that, for the well-being of the child, there is a critical period.  If this bond does not happen within 12 months, the child’s well-being can be threatened.  If it does not happen within 2½ years, it will not happen. He also assumed that the primary bond will be with the mother.

 

So, this is the source of much of the arguments.  One must realise that his research was on emotionally deprived children, and is not applicable to children who have both mothers and fathers. Although attachment theory is accepted, research by other psychologists (notably Schaffer) has tested some of the statements.  Firstly, females are no better “mothers” in this regard than are males, i.e. attachment happens between children and fathers.  Furthermore, the child is not restricted to a primary bond, but may develop numerous bonds of equal importance.  So, fathers (and other primary care-givers) are just as important as are mothers.

 

Enter social prejudice (including religion) that states that fathers provide for the physical well being of the family and mothers provide for the emotional well-being.  Add to this other social pressures (e.g. feminism, the gay movement, free love, hell's angels, etc. etc.) that further breaks down the father’s role.  Add to this the litigious law fraternity that wants to escalate friction.

 

Then we get a judge who has to make a decision.  Research has shown (mostly in the US) that judges’ decisions in custody cases are made on the basis of least harm.  These decisions are supported by case history (made on the basis of least harm), together with one-sided and prejudicial arguments supporting motherhood and decreasing the value of fatherhood. And anyway, all of this stuff is wrapped up in emotions and the judge doesn’t want to (isn’t able to) deal with the emotional stuff.  Judges make decisions based on facts. That’s what he’s trained to do, those are the tools available to him. The strange thing is, it is not empirical facts, but rather facts as presented by lawyers and commonly understood by society.  It is the judges' ethical role to support and protect society.  That's the system, but as we said, lawyers want a fight and only see a win/lose solution, and the general society is prejudiced).

 

So, that’s why fathers have a hard time.  It has nothing to do with the father and his capability or even his relationship with the children. There is an assumption that the child has a bond with the mother and the father has to prove his. And sure, it is in the child’s best interests to be with the mother, especially when young.  But it is equally in the child’s best interest to be with the father, especially when young. It is the structure of society and the legal system that has to have a winner and a loser.  Sharing is not an easy outcome for the litigious process (nor an easy outcome for many divorced mothers who are supported by the legal process).

 

 

Cell:      083 576 4093

Fax:      086 514 0244

E-mail:   mjv...@gmail.com

 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.2/1471 - Release Date: 2008/05/28 05:33 PM