Murray has already drawn attention to this article on Stuff yesterday in a comment, but I think it deserves a post of it’s own. It is written by Rene Smit, who I met many years ago at the Dunedin Father & Child group. ‘Active dads’ could tackle child poverty.
Rene’s perspective is similar to most MENZ contributors, as he demonstrates when he talks about the rise of poverty in the 1980s:
Another big social change was the idea that having a father active in the lives of children was not necessary. Considerable resources were put in place to assist women to meet this belief. Considerable effort was exerted to foster this belief, backed by the theory that this was necessary to combat the evils of patriarchy – read men – which they considered the confining force on women.
He makes an interesting point about the rise of inequality which I had never really considered before:
Those women that have gained the skills to make a good income are naturally pairing up with partners that have the same skills. In part, it is these duel high income partnerships that have the buying power to drive up prices, which in turn makes life harder for those not in this situation.
The Stuff discussion is worth reading too. Most participants generally agree with the article, but there are a couple of obvious trolls pushing the feminist line that the real problem is that dads are all deadbeats:
I, along with most other single mothers I know, would absolutely love the father of my children to take responsibility and contribute to the welfare of his kids. I have tried for years to get him to talk to his kids, spend time with them, and contribute financially to their upbringing. However he will not.