Why is is that society sees fathers as less responsible for their children then mothers?

[splashymcsplash]

I started another thread on this but I don't think I expressed myself very well, or maybe this is not a topic feminists are interested in? I'm new to this section of MN, so forgive me if this is the case.

Time after time, I see users posting how fathers should not be held responsible for their children, should not have to pay child support etc.

Why is it that it is socially acceptable for father's to walk away from their children, without even paying child support? If a mother did the same she would be a pariah.

Does anyone else a change in public perception is needed?

what, here? I mean have you seen people on MN saying that fathers shouldn't pay child support or take responsibility for their care?

Both, and unfortunately this view seems shared by a lot of people off MN too.

I don't think that it is socially acceptable. Probably the difference is that you can be a father without knowing it but you can't be a mother without knowing it.

I'm surprised that you've found that view regularly on MN.

I have never come across that view on here.

I've never come across that view on here either. I have seen people suggest that fathers who have more children in a second relationship shouldn't have to financially support their pre-exisitng children to the same extent which I find utterly loathsome.

Most feminists would argue that the father's legal right to piss off and do nothing to support their children [financially or emotionally] is a result of the patriarchal constructions of sexuality which hold women responsible for birth control and childcare despite the fact that, generally speaking, women can't get pregnant without a man's penis being involved.

It's misogyny.

I don't get the sense on MN or in RL that people think fathers should be able to walk away from their children. Quite the opposite.

Some men do walk away of course and some men want more involvemement but are not allowed to by the courts (reflecting our societal attitudes) that automatically assumes children are 'better off' with their mother and then fails to do anything when those mothers make it difficult for fathers to maintain what little contact they get.

I don't think that this is true. I know many, many divorced parents and absolutely no children who are not brought up by both their parents. Sure, there are Disney dads out there - but they are often working very hard indeed and paying a lot of spousal maintenance and child support. There are also Disney mums (we have our very own one of these in DP's exW ) and they tend to make less of a financial contribution to their DCs' lives than the Disney dads.

I don't know any fathers who have walked away-sadly I know some who have a very difficult ex wife who makes any any relationship and contact difficult.

There are many fathers who simply walk away and do not provide for their children either emotionally or financially. Sadly. Just because you do not know any does not change that reality - just be grateful that your reality is different.

Ifi had done what my daughters father had done I would fully expect tonbe criticised and judged. I think it is morally wrong to chose to create another human being and then remain on the other side of the world. My daughter suffers for this. Yet he is not criticised. Instead it is seen as ok because he is a man pursuing a career.

I agree it is misogyny. Single parent mothers are reviled, single parent dads are heroes.

Yes, I know there are also many examples of bitter women who try to thwart contac between the children and their ex - but as I repeatedly say on here, the day FFJ and Families need Fathers start criticising the fathers who walk away,is the only day I will take them seriously.

But Spero, being on the other side of the world for work reasons does not per se constitute "walking away". I know of several children whose parents are on different continents (Europe and Asia, these days) - some of those parents are divorced, some together but living apart. Walking away from a child is no longer paying for the child, stopping contact etc. You can live in the next village and do that.

Don't recognise this view as being the prevailing one on MN. This is going to limit responses, as it makes folk a bit suspicious when people come on and say 'you MNers all think this'

It is not for work. He entered into a new relationship within three months of our separation. His new partner did not wish to leave australia.

He could easily get a job here. Maybe it wouldn't be exactly the kind of job he wants but he could work and earn a living.

Your response simply proves my point. Once you have decided to bring a child into this world, some sacrifice is required from the parents. You may end up living somewhere you are not keen on, or doing a job you don't really like. But you suck it up because little children benefit emotionally from the actual presence of their parents.

Yet it is ok for him to prioritise his own choices above his daughters needs, I can only assume because he is a man.

I know women who have moved to the other side of the world, leaving the father of their children wherever he was. I don't think that it is the sole preserve of men.

I am not saying that women never do selfish unkind things. Of course they do.

But the vast majority of people left holding the baby are women. The vast majority of female single parents are in poverty.

I agree with the op that the general view of society is that men are somehow less responsible for the emotional well being of their children. The only explanation for this is ingrained cultural misogyny.

I know far more men who've fucked off than women. That's just my personal experience.

Government statistics demonstrate the same. Far more men than women walk out on their children and proceed to have no/little contact and refuse to financially support their children.

There have been quite a few threads on MN lately about abortion where lots of people have said that if a woman finds out she is pregnant and the man does not want a child (wants her to have an abortion) but she decides to keep it then he should not be liable for any financial contribution.

So maybe it is those threads.

It also comes up quite a bit when some posters who are the second family / new family / what do you want to call it have certain ideas about how the previous wife /partner is spending the money and have a view that they do not need the money.

These are still quite unusual though I don't think it is the case at all that the predominant view on MN is that men should not have to support their offspring.

I have never encoutered that view on MN.

I don't know any man who has walked away but I do know a couple of men who moved to the Middle East to be able to pay maintenence for their DC's. I would view that as being selfless and responsible although quite sad for all involved.

However, since time began, women have been the main caregivers to children and men the main providers. This has obviously changed with many men and women mixing these roles and doing a bit of both but what hasn't changed is that women are far less likely to 'leave' and men are far less likely to get or seek joint or sole custody in the event of the separation.
There are exceptions of course but this is broadly the case. There will always be feckless mothers and fathers, that is life!