NOW at 40: Group’s Opposition to Shared Parenting

Monday, July 31, 2006
By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks

The National Organization for Women turned 40 this summer, and formally celebrated its anniversary at its national conference in July. NOW President Kim Gandy has proudly recounted her organization’s successes in opening up opportunities for women, and says they are “never giving up the dream of full equality for all.”

Unfortunately, on some issues – particularly in family law and child custody – NOW’s policies and actions contradict its ideals of “full equality for all.” This is most evident in the group’s dogged opposition to joint custody and shared parenting.

The logic behind shared parenting is hard to dispute. Kids love, want and need both their parents. When divorcing parents cannot agree on custody arrangements, as long as both parents are fit, they should both be allowed to share in parenting their children. Not surprisingly, research shows that children of divorce fare better under joint custody – where they spend significant amounts of time with each parent – than under sole custody.

NOW and its co-thinkers, to their credit, once encouraged fathers, fathering and shared parenting. In 1971 Gloria Steinem wrote that children suffer from having “too little father” in their lives, and that a more equal balance of parenting was needed. Karen DeCrow, president of NOW from 1974 to 1977, says “it was clear from the feminist writings and ideas of the ’60s and ’70s that joint custody was what we supported after a divorce.”

Fathers have embraced the call for more father involvement. Despite an ever-expanding work week, children today benefit from receiving more hands-on fathering than ever before. The Families and Work Institute found that fathers now provide three-fourths as much child care as mothers do – 50 percent more than 30 years ago.

Paradoxically, while fathers are more directly involved in their children’s lives than ever, their bonds with their children are also more fragile. In the late 1970s NOW reversed itself and began promoting sole custody in divorce cases. In most divorces mothers are awarded sole (or de facto sole) custody of the children, and most post-divorce parenting time schedules offer fathers and children less than 20 percent physical time together.

Men who don’t provide for their families are not respected, yet family courts treat fathers who have worked hard to support their families like absent parents whose bonds with their children merit limited consideration. DeCrow rightly denounces this practice as “sexist” and “inhuman.”

Along with divorce attorneys, NOW is the largest organized group fighting shared parenting legislation. It has issued numerous warnings, including one that says fathers’ groups seeking joint custody laws are “using the abuse of power in order to control in the same fashion as do batterers.” In their statements the words “husband” and “father” are generally preceded by the word “abusive.”

Using these scare tactics, NOW has blocked shared parenting bills in several states this year, including New York and Michigan. Yet as even feminist firebrand Martha Burk notes, “With close to half of all marriages ending in divorce, it’s impossible to believe that the majority of divorcing fathers are violent, and it would be wrong to base public policy on the notion that they are.”

Over the past four decades America has come a long way in redressing the grievances of disadvantaged groups, including women, African-Americans, Latinos and gays. The most glaring civil rights violations in America today are those suffered by divorced dads, many of whom have been pushed out of their children’s lives without justification. It’s time for NOW to re-examine its misguided stand against shared parenting, and to bring its policies into line with its stated ideals.

This article appeared in the New York Daily News (7/27/06), the San Diego Union-Tribune (7/7/06) and others.

Mike McCormick is the Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, the world’s largest shared parenting organization. Their website is www.acfc.org.

Glenn Sacks’ columns on men’s and fathers’ issues have appeared in dozens of America’s largest newspapers. Glenn can be reached via his website at www.GlennSacks.com or via email at Glenn@GlennSacks.com.

| More from Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks

Stumble It!

Share/Save/Bookmark

How to survive the coming food shortage.

5 Responses to “NOW at 40: Group’s Opposition to Shared Parenting”

  1. 1
    Roger Knight Says:

    Yes, it is true, in the early days, NOW was for father’s rights.
    Now, NOW does not believe in all of that. Not NOW!
    The legal community does what it does because it is financially motivated. With no-fault divorce, a lawyer need not prove anything, and collect the awards for attorney’s fees when divying up the property and imposing the support order. They fleece the breadwinner for the same reason Robin Hood stole from the rich: it is more profitable than stealing from the poor. And here is NOW supporting them in such endeavor.
    So, Glen and Mark, we all know shared parenting is the better way in divorce, and we need to cease the financial incentive for one side to file for divorce, but how do we get there from here?
    Shhhh! Never discuss the Antipeonage Act. The Child Support Crusade depends on nobody realizing it is crime to enslave for debt!

  2. 2
    wls Says:

    A 20% timeshare is generous for a father:
    probably less than 20% get close to that much.

    The benchmark is `standard visitation,’ which
    consists of two long days (10-12 hours each) a
    month—usually every-other weekend—and perhaps
    2 or 3 dinners. That may almost reach 5% if one
    is lucky: a _lot_ “less than 20 percent.”

    The rise of NOW’s anti-joint custody advocacy
    occurred in parallel with a shift away from
    stressing self-reliance for women in favor of an
    emphasis on receiving welfare and other
    entitlements. A strand urging divorce as a
    matter of course or for its own sake entered its
    rhetoric, and they also began advocating for
    alimony or spousal support, and child support,
    laws more `favorable’ to women, and a
    fundamentally false and unsound approach to
    domestic violence.

  3. 3
    DcFather Says:

    Well, as we all know, most legislators and all judges are lawyers, and loyal to “The Bar”. Any business making up the rules is going to advantage their own business, unless the people are truly in charge. If auto manufacturers made up and enforced all of the laws, we would we would have to buy a new car every year, and they would function so poorly and be so dangerous we’d have to anyhow. And anybody who didn’t could have their children taken, because the auto manufacturers would be looking out “for the children”, don’t you know.

    But those gray-haired lesbians at NOW have a number one priority of abortion, i.e. killing children. How or why anybody listens to what they think is best for children is absurd. I suspect if the auto manufacturing business did in fact make up all of the rules instead of the lawyering business, the dyke hags would be making sure the man pays for the new car while the woman drives it, and the more children killed in vehicle mishaps the better.

  4. 4
    right2parent Says:

    “…as long as both parents are fit, they should both be allowed to share in parenting their children.”

    If both parents were fit, there would be no petitioner for a divorce. A petitioner for a no-fault divorce is an unfit parent. One who petitions for a divorce for cause is rightly responsible for proving it. The “best interest” standard, rightly used where there is a government interest, is assumed to have replaced a strict scrutiny standard for parental termination under the common law. Must have “evolved” like the constitution, right?

    Just don’t bother me with that “head of household stuff.”

  5. 5
    wls Says:

    The ?best interest? standard . . . Must have
    ?evolved? like the constitution, right?

    NO.

    Strict scrutiny in terminations of parental
    rights is new—1982—and applied the
    strengthened parental and privacy rights
    recognized by the courts in the 1960s and 70s.

    Family courts largely decend from ecclesiastical
    and equity courts, but common law also had little
    notion of parental rights.

Leave a Reply

International Mens Day and Fathers Day in Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden

Search MND

Introducing MRm: A New Men's Rights Magazine in PDF format

Download PDF Here

Support Our Sponsors!

Please support MND

Subscribe today:

SUSTAINER: $5/mo.


CONTRIBUTOR: $20/mo.


SUPPORTER: $50/mo.


Or Donate Any Amount

Archives

privacy policy | terms of service


Site Meter

MND: Your Daily Dose of Counter-Theory is Digg proof thanks to caching by WP Super Cache!