Do expectant fathers need support too?
We talk a lot about how expectant mothers in crisis need support... and her partner always seems to be assumed to be part of HER potential support system, rather than someone who also might need support. But why is that?
Isn't he also in crisis? Isn't he also about to become a parent in a way he might not have planned? (And if anything, doesn't he have less choice in the matter, since he has no option to abort?) Does he necessarily have more money, more parenting experience, or more resources?
I mean, yeah, there comes a point where a pregnant woman is no longer able to work, and at that point she'll need financial support that her partner not carrying the pregnancy won't. That makes perfect sense. But most women aren't totally incapacitated for nine months. Most women with jobs don't have the option to take nine full months off work. So I'm not seeing how that's the make or break for him being a supporter for the entire pregnancy.
(I realize that in years previous, including the BSE, women didn't have the opportunity to work and seek jobs freely. I'm not intending to debate that. I'm talking entirely about the present, when being a female won't keep a woman entirely out of the workforce.)
The woman also has hormonal stuff going on. But is her crisis entirely hormonal? And aren't pregnant women generally considered mentally competent in other areas of life? I don't really see that as sufficient argument either.
I'm thinking less about money, than about emotional support and encouragement-- though he might also need financial support if they're in the same financial boat. But I mean mainly being encouraged to parent. Being told he could be a good father. Being told that it's important to be active in his child's life, not that he's the disposable parent or just a vending machine for child support payments. Being told that his actions matter too, and not just in regards to the mother but for his baby.
It seems like in most talk of family preservation, if a father walks away, he's considered a deadbeat, but if a mother walks away, it's assumed that lack of support meant she didn't have the opportunity to parent her child. Why the double standard?
If both parents bear equal responsibility for the child, why is one parent the supported and one the supporter?
If men received more support (still thinking more emotional than financial,) and had their parenting role taken more seriously, do you think more of them might step up?
JW-- I think you missed the point. Obviously, men can't carry a pregnancy. But they are 50% of a conception, and are also a parent to the child, whether they are highly involved or have to be hunted down for child support payments. Children don't come into the world with only mothers.
You don't have to agree with me, if you can actually provide a reason that the man's need or level of deserving is lesser. But if you're just assuming he doesn't matter because he isn't pregnant... well, you're doing exactly the kind of thinking I was calling into question.
I should add, obviously while a woman is pregnant, her housing, nutrition, and medical care also affect the baby. So I do see financial support necessary from that angle being applied only to her... maybe.
But shouldn't we be concerned about ANY person who lacks shelter, food, or the ability to access healthcare? Should that even be about pregnancy in the first place? Because I see it as a more general humanitarian concern, not something that only activates our notice when egg meets sperm.
I'm not saying that I think mothers and fathers should always be given an exactly equal amount of physical or financial support, because they do have different needs, especially if they aren't a single household. Just that even if we aren't just talking emotional support, I don't understand why one partner would be disregarded.
Walter, I'm not sure I disagree with you, but I am slightly puzzled.
"I think guys should be getting support from their family if they are trying to be responsible and raise their child."
Do you feel a mother should have to demonstrate some kind of intent before SHE is offered support? If she expresses an intention toward adoption rather than raising the child, is that the point where we cut her off too?
If not, why would we do that to the father?
I'm not suggesting that men should not be held responsible-- just that what you're suggesting still seems to hold them MORE responsible than women. (A mother is offered support just for being a mother; a father has to prove something.)
I agree if you're making a distinction between an offer of support and money actually being passed to him. But if you're saying there shouldn't even be an offer till he has already stepped up... that seems to reinforce the cycle rather than helping the man to see a way to do better for his child.