Okay, not really in keeping with the theme but. . .
Okay. So Time just put this up. Perhaps I'm crazy for being a stitch upset about it, but really, this article on the Friday before Father's Day?
Here's what I think is terribly wrong with this article, besides the incredibly poor taste in timing. The article quotes a fair number of statistics (never mind how crappy it does in providing sources) but offers little to only surface level analysis. The thesis of the article ". What's less clear is whether dads--at least as a group--have done a good enough job to deserve the honor," is then tacitly supported by these statistics.
This does a disservice to men and fathers in particular. Social customs and in many states, the legal system is not set up to be conducive to fathers having as a big role as possible in the lives of their children. If a father tries to pay court mandated child support, he is tied to working the job he's at or one that pays more. Most courts will not reduce the amount of child support owed if a father takes a job that pay less. Even if the purpose of that jobe is to go to school to be able to get a better job or simply to be able to spend more time with his children. To say nothing of the problems of mothers moving and taking the children with them. If mom moves to a smaller town (with correspondingly lower paying jobs) the father still cannot accept a lower paying jobe nearer his children.
The situation gets worse when the custody battle is not between once married parents or when paternity is contested. By the time court proceedings are started, the playing field is slanted toward the mother, who has retained sole custody the entire time.
The article, goes into none of this. It's irresponsible at best, and deliberately biased and slanted at worst.
But, of course, I could be nuts or overreacting. :) Y'all can tell me.
Oh, and I swear I'll get back to posting some actual writing soon. I promise.
Here's what I think is terribly wrong with this article, besides the incredibly poor taste in timing. The article quotes a fair number of statistics (never mind how crappy it does in providing sources) but offers little to only surface level analysis. The thesis of the article ". What's less clear is whether dads--at least as a group--have done a good enough job to deserve the honor," is then tacitly supported by these statistics.
This does a disservice to men and fathers in particular. Social customs and in many states, the legal system is not set up to be conducive to fathers having as a big role as possible in the lives of their children. If a father tries to pay court mandated child support, he is tied to working the job he's at or one that pays more. Most courts will not reduce the amount of child support owed if a father takes a job that pay less. Even if the purpose of that jobe is to go to school to be able to get a better job or simply to be able to spend more time with his children. To say nothing of the problems of mothers moving and taking the children with them. If mom moves to a smaller town (with correspondingly lower paying jobs) the father still cannot accept a lower paying jobe nearer his children.
The situation gets worse when the custody battle is not between once married parents or when paternity is contested. By the time court proceedings are started, the playing field is slanted toward the mother, who has retained sole custody the entire time.
The article, goes into none of this. It's irresponsible at best, and deliberately biased and slanted at worst.
But, of course, I could be nuts or overreacting. :) Y'all can tell me.
Oh, and I swear I'll get back to posting some actual writing soon. I promise.
posted by Grendel at 11:26 AM
2 comments
