Romeo Cried Too - The Toothless Lion

Please send all comments and articles to:

The Toothless Lion:
Young, Urban Teenage Fathers

“Teach those willing to learn and understand you as much as one can; society is culpable in not providing instruction for all equally and it must answer for the darkness it produces. If the soul is left in the darkness, sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but those that cause the darkness." Spinoza

The 1980’s through 2000’s have been plagued with a media-based epidemic of single parents. The stigma attached to the young urban male faced with the responsibility of parenthood finds him in a situation where he is expected to take flight rather than assume fatherhood. Through research and personal interaction during group sessions and other human services capacities, I have found this not only to be untrue, but also have witnessed certain societal measures that produce anticipation and the anxiety of paternal abandonment, also known in the psychology community as “self fulfillment prophecy.” The systems we have as a society empower females over males in matters of the family unit. It minimizes the status of the male to mere provider when the relationship is absolved. This is done through legislative manipulation, moral justification, religious precipitation and societal values.

In May 2001, New York State proposed to change the term “visitation” into “parenting time;” this was opposed by the feminist activist group NOW (National Organization for Women) under the auspices that the terminology minimizes the role of the custodial parent.

NOW opposes this legislation that would change the word “visitation” to “parenting time” wherever it appears in New York State law because of non-custodial parents finding the word “visitation” offensive.

This bill states that, “The term ‘visitation’ carries a negative connotation with respect to non-custodial parents…that can be associated with the visiting of an inmate at a correctional facility or prison.” This allegation constitutes a wide stretch of the imagination. The suggested purpose of this bill is to “reflect the fact that a parent’s time with a child is not merely as a visitor but constitutes parenting time.” Unfortunately, changing terminology in state law will not change the reality of visitation.

Designating visitation as “parenting time” will not change the fact that many non-custodial parents do not choose to be involved in their children’s lives. The term “parenting time” suggests that non-custodial parents take active, positive roles in the lives of their children. While this may be true in some cases, this language clouds the fact that many parents granted visitation are not held accountable for their share of time in a child’s life.

This legislation will lay the groundwork for the courts to decrease child support awards based on a change in terminology to “parenting time.” Changing the designation of visitation to “parenting time” suggests to the court that visitation should be equated with actual parenting responsibilities, financial and otherwise. The argument has already been made by non-custodial parents that time spent with their children should be deducted from their child support obligations. It is in fact the primary caretaker who is responsible for the day-to-day care of the child and it is a gross misstatement of fact to equate parenting time with visitation. Thousands of visitation schedules exist which vary from one hour per week to alternate week arrangements. There is always a primary caretaker charged with the principal on-going responsibilities of raising a child where the non-custodial parent is not equally engaged, by choice. In addition, the term “parenting time” does nothing to address the fact that visitation time is unenforceable.

I chose this excerpt because it speaks in brevity of the sentiments that forsake the members of my group session members, young teenage urban fathers. During group therapy sessions, the subject of the child welfare system and its bias has become the shadowing basis for many discussions. To paraphrase one group member: “Women want to live in a world where they can do and become anything they choose to, they say that in today’s world a woman can do everything a man can, but when it comes to a man doing everything a woman can, they can’t hear The courts basically says that unless you are a millionaire, you are not a better parent than the mother.”

Child welfare in many cases is not primarily about the welfare of the child. It is a measure of power and control within the family unit aided and enforced by the system of government and legislation, which act not in accordance to fairness, but acting on long established peripherals of ethics and values. This is reflected by the incredible bias shown towards women in custody awards and child support.

Montana - 8.1/8.4 47.8/46.4 43.3/44.0 High
Kansas - 7.8/6.8 50.1/47.2 39.5/43.6
Connecticut - 5.3/5.3 58.7/58.1 35.8/36.4
Idaho - 9.8/10 57.9/55.3 31.9/33.2
Rhode Island - NA/5.4 NA/62.2 NA/31.7
Alaska - NA/14 NA/63.1 NA/19.5 Medium
Vermont -NA/10 NA/71.4 NA/17.1
Illinois - 8.7/9.2 77.4/75.4 13.7/15.1
Wyoming - 11.0/9 73.0/74.4 14.1/15.1
Missouri - 10.4 74.4/73.1 14.0/14.8
Oregon - 10.7 74.1/71.7 14.9/14.0
Michigan - 9.5 76.4/73.9 12.5/14.2
Virginia - NA NA/70.9 NA/13.8
Pennsylvania - 10.5 78.6/76.7 9.4/10.1 Low
Utah - 10.5 79.3/81.1 10.1/9.0
Tennessee - 11.1 78.9/78.9 8.1/8.6
Alabama - 9.7 79.5/80.2 9.3/8.6
New Hampshire - 12.2 79.9/80.4 6.6/7.1
Nebraska - NA NA/81.3 NA/4.1

Table 1. Physical Custody Awarded (percent), 1989/1990 (http://www.vix.com/crc/sp/spcrc97.htm)
These numbers are disproportionately real, however. To understand the present dysfunctional state of custodial awards and parental expectations, we must first examine the derivative systems already in place.

The members of my group therapy sessions deal with system manipulation on many levels of intervention. They consider themselves without voice and without fair representation. In some ways, they are absolutely correct. However, in order for us to understand today’s world, we must first understand yesterday’s.

American society is a replication of English society in many ways. When America became colonized, it adopted many of the English traditions, child custody being one of the many adopted and adapted by the New World. In Old English law, the wife and children were considered the property of the husband. Should the union be dissolved, custody was automatically awarded to the father since the father was considered the best suited to provide for the family in this patriarchal societal system. It was not until the industrial revolution that the family system of economy became disturbed in two ways; the father was forced to leave the rural systems of trade and commerce (farm work) and forced into the urban system of industrialization (factory work). Secondly, the female now had the means of self support since industrialization maximized on the labor market of females and children. The patriarchal system was diminished and the social and judicial system became influenced with the enactment of the Talfourd Act of 1839, which viewed women as being better-suited to rear children from the ages of one to seven . The Act still deemed the remaining years of those children’s lives to be in the custody of the father. Eventually, with the expansion of industrialization and, of course, war, fathers lost their foothold in the system - as being the most suited to care and raise children. The basis of this ideology has filtered into modern society without examination or resolution.

My group therapy members, young teenage fathers, are dealing with stripping themselves of the stigmas and negative social expectations that have bound them with since birth. They struggle daily with becoming who they are (self-actualization), and not what they are expected to be (self-fulfillment prophecy). The system of government does not offer these group members the luxury of support and motivation to become parents, as it does for their female counterparts. In most cases up until February 2001, with the introduction of the Fatherhood initiative, the only intervention on behalf of the government has been disciplinary action for lack of child support. Even the practice of abortion is unfairly biased, allowing one parent to make lifetime decisions for three people: the unborn child, the father and the mother. The imbalance is that the mother decides for two people whether they will be parents or not. If the mother can decide without the fathers consent if she is to be a parent, then the father should equally be legally allowed to waive the right of parenthood.

The definition of systems as explained by Funk & Wagnall’s standard dictionary are:

“The orderly combination or arrangement, as of parts or elements, into a whole; specifically, such combination according to some rational principle; any methodical arrangement of parts.”

“The connection or manner of connection of parts as related to a whole, or the parts collectively so related to a whole, or the parts collectively so related; a whole as made up of constitutive parts.”

Through coursework at the University, we study various methods, theories and practices to become purposeful, knowledgeable psychologists. However, knowledge is not beneficial until it is questioned and acknowledged as viable.

Personally, I have come to believe that because of the enormous media influence absorbed during daily social education, it would be reckless not to examine to what degree we individually act or react to social expectations. Milgram’s studies on social influence proved that without question in many circles, which include people of “ordinary” backgrounds, individuals often comply with social pressures, both direct and indirect commands. The stigmas of the urban black male also adhere to direct and indirect commands. It is socially expected in some cases for a male to run in the light of responsibilities. The media portrays this to incredible degrees. Self-fulfilling prophecies, as described by one author in Exploring Psychology, are in evidence “if we expect people to behave to be uncooperative and hostile, we may treat them in ways that elicit such behavior.” Another concept that I rarely see used to correlate with urban black fatherhood is group polarization, which is the prevailing tendencies of a group.

Familiarity breeds acceptance, therefore if my group therapy members are familiar with fatherless homes, then it becomes accepted behavior to leave with clear consciences. However, these young fathers on a daily basis combat what is too well-known to them; presumptions of defeat at every turn. They face defeat in the forum of education while struggling to maintain their urban masculinity as fathers, providers and role models. As a society, we all would like to have the young fathers of our communities act as lions protecting the pride. However, if you take away all defensibility, then that toothless lion becomes dependent on the lioness to hunt. It has only been within recent times that students were academically measured to insure their effectiveness in society. Groups of young fathers are also directly influenced by the system of government, which many fathers feel takes a biased, adversarial position. Economics plays another major role in the adaptation of the young urban father in providing for his family. The young teenage father often assumes low-paying jobs and is barely able to support his household. The impact that systems play on today’s young fathers is a topic I think needs to be discussed apart from the political deviations of what is socially trendy at this time.

The first step toward social restructure of the family unit is not in child development, but in relationship counseling. Our young fathers need the positive reinforcement not of our families and extended families, but of our significant others or the custodial parents of our children. The answer to this epidemic of child abandonment is not alienation or safeguarding one sex over the other, but bringing both sexes to the table equal terms.

Charting Parenthood – A Statistical Portrait of Fathers and Mothers in America (July, 2002) http://www.childtrends.org/PDF/ParenthoodRpt2002.pdf

The Toothless Lion: Young, Urban Teenage Fathers

The Toothless Lion:
Young, Urban Teenage Fathers