Unfeminist re parental responsibility?

[ThroughThinkandThing]

Friend A has been ranting about parental responsibility, and fathers not automatically getting parental responsibility if they aren't married to the mother (on facebook, I tend to avoid these arguments as they don't end well).

Mutual friend B has said that she thought it was to do with protection for the child and mother, so that absent father can't cause trouble. That if the relationship is amicable (either as a couple, or co-parenting) the father can apply for parental responsibility, or just get on with parenting. That father whether absent or not, still has a duty to provide for said child. That given the rise in couples who don't get married, possibly this is something that needs to be revisited. That yes, there are mothers who are awful and will take advantage of this, but very few. And that given mothers tend to be the prime caregivers in the event of the a relationship breakdown, this is probably the best way for it to be handled.

I read all this and thought "yep, broadly agreeing with that, sounds good". Friend A has jumped on her completely, calling her unfeminist, that treating parents differently perpetuates inequality and that it gives men a "get out of jail free" card in parenting.

Now tempted to stick my toe in, though I know it's a bad idea because facebook, but feeling quite sorry for friend B. Before I did that, I wanted to throw it open here, because I've learnt a lot through reading the feminism/relationship boards, do consider myself a feminist, and wanted to know if there is a general view that I (and friend B) are completely wrong and regressive, or if friend A is wrong. I'd love to live in a utopia where all parents, whether together or not, parent properly for the best for the children, but we don't live in that world.

Please help me formulate my views, or educate me if I am completely wrong?!

"So really, why should they be given the very parental rights" should be ... "the very same", sorry.

"really, why should they be given the very parental rights as women for ... doing what exactly? Investing some sperm?"

It's not rights, it's responsibilities. And yes, they get the same and rightly so.

Because it's not about the mother or the father, but the baby and his/her right to both parents.

It's not about the baby having a right to both parents. No such right exists.

In a perfect world, both parents would have equal rights and responsibilities (mainly responsibilities) for looking after a child they've had together. But in the world we have at the present, where absent dads often combine being completely controlling with not taking any bloody responsibility at all, anything which hands mothers more power over being able to look after their own children is a plus in my book.

I had DS before the most recent requirements for parental responsibility came in. I am so glad about that.

So, no, it isn't unfeminist to say that mothers should have more rights than the dads do, as the mothers almost inevitably end up with more responsibility, whether they want it or not.

I worry we don't have the balance right re: abusive men getting access to their children. However I do not think a decent man who aspires to be a good father should be denied from doing so.

Again I don't think we need to make it automatic for a father to go on the birth certificate. It's easy enough to get it added as it is.

We don't make it an automatic right for fathers to be on the birth certificate because there would be no way of policing it.

When the mother registers the birth, she has no way of demonstrating in every case that the father did not want to be on the birth certificate.

The only practical ways of fathers being added are the ones we currently have.

A baby has human rights.

Which include right to family life. Therefore a right to a relationship with his/her parents.

Those rights can be altered or made conditional by the courts when there is something of even greater importance to that child (usually a safeguarding issue). But that is about establishing what is best for the child, and suspending one of its rights because of extreme circumstances can be done, but is not done lightly.

A baby has no right to a relationship with a father if the father does not want a relationship with him or her.

A baby has no right to have an unmarried father on the birth certificate if that father doesn't want to be on it.

There is no automatic right to a relationship with both biological parents.

And you don't need a court to make that decision. Fathers make that decision all the time.

Neither parent has automatic PR...they have to register the birth.

Being on the birth certificate gives PR, to both parents... it's just that unmarried mothers are unable to put a father on the birth certificate without him.

The baby cannot compel a third party to live up to their obligations. But that does not remove the child's rights.

"A right to a family life being interpreted as a right to a relationship with mother and father is rather a narrow view of family imo."

Totally correct. It is just one strand of it.

The state cannot compel fathers to live up to such obligations, because no such obligation actually exists in law!

'no such obligation exists in law'

Correct.

Human rights law is a fascinating and complex subject.

The baby has these rights, but there is no means to ensure they are properly observed. Instead there are various proxies, over the things which can be enforced.

There is no right for a child to have their father's name on a birth certificate. It is up to the father.

Barking correct at people doesn't actually make you correct.

The primary purpose of a birth certificate is to ensure that children have a nationality, which is why it is not a requirement to put the father on, as many would refuse, leaving the child with no birth certificate. This leaves huge numbers of children without basic rights in other countries, because they have no birth certificate.

I'd also like to echo a sentiment up thread. Putting men on birth certificates isn't going magically make them want to parent. Those of us who want to parent will make the effort.

I know the child doesn't have the right to a particular piece of ink on the birth certificate, and I never said or intended even vaguely to suggest that.

Nor did I intend to 'bark', but it is the frustration of feeling a need to correct what seem to me to be complete misreading so of what I posted.

Apologies for not writing well enough.

Thank you to everyone for your input. I'm not going to get involved in the facebook discussion (which is continuing quite happily in my absence!) but I'm glad I posted to see some of the thinking from the members of this board.
Especially thanks to almondpudding for your patience with my cross-posting!

"How do we know who the father is' is basically the justification for patriarchy."

Succinctly put!

I disagree. "How do we know who the father is?" is very much a function of biology, especially in humans.

Well actually barbarian in the vast, vast majority of cases the mother knows exactly who the father is. The issue is the man involved for whatever reason wants to bleat on about "not knowing" and society likes to believe that women are liars. Infuriating.

Yes the mother usually knows, but she can dissemble. The whole point of human female reproduction is that ovulation is hidden (we don't come into season visibly or signalled with scent like most mammals). Ergo women can select sperm and ergo the patriarchy to try and stop us doing so. It's not a moral judgement, just biology.

Um, that's what almond (who I quoted) said, BM.