Gender Equality in Custody Cases
Men getting denied custody in favor of women simply based on their gender would be an example of reverse discrimination only if women were the underdog in the parenting role. Contrary to popular belief, women are not the underdog in every aspect of life and have equally as many "women rolesā as men have "men rolesā, though their value in society may be understated. The role of primary parent is the most important and traditional of āwomenās rolesā, therefore, in custody disputes men who are fighting for custody are doing so on what has traditionally been known as a womanās turf. Men are the underdog in the world of parental care, and it would only be reverse discrimination against women if men started to receive full custody as a way for the courts to establish gender equality, or in corporate terms, "meet a quota". Instead, men who are bypassed for custody simply because they are male is an example of regular discrimination, just as it is regular discrimination when a female gets bypassed for a traditional male role like a construction job or corporate position simply because she is female.
Women have traditionally won custody because as most would agree, women are better biologically suited for the job of primary parent. They tend to have a more nurturing nature, they are better at feeding and clothing children and giving them the love and attention they require, and until recent decades most women were constantly present in the home. This is similar to the idea that men are better suited for the provider role due to their genetic build and lack of familial obligations. However, in current times, 57% of women are now working full time compared to 69 % of men (USDL), and their availability to sufficiently handle all the classic roles of motherhood has changed. The tasks are now often shared with the father, or a third party, or both, which puts the parents on a more even playing field as far as who would be more present for their children.
Another aspect to consider is the incentives for those who are seeking full/primary custody. Men have only recently begun to vie for the job of āmotherā more aggressively, and while many men do this out of love and in some cases because the mother is unfit, I feel that some may attempt to get custody so they do not have to pay child support. The amount of child support is based off of the oneās paycheck and the number of children involved, and the sum can be very large. If the father misses one payment, he is immediately threatened with jail until he pays. Therefore, the consequences of the father NOT receiving primary custody introduce an incentive for him to fight. This is important because while child support and divorce are nothing new, the demographic of divorcing parents now includes those who have no income, insufficient income, or those who simply do not want to part with their income due to greed, spitefulness towards the ex or economic downturn. On the flip side, the same could be said for women: Itās possible that some women may only want custody for the paycheck that comes with it. Despite the possible financial motive for both parties, there are plenty of men and women who simply love their children and are acting altruistically in their efforts to keep them. When child support is factored in, both parents are again put on a more level playing field.
With the scales more evenly tilted, it is indeed unfair that women should continue to get favored for custody when they are working almost as much as men, parental duties are becoming shared or delegated to a third party and financial incentive is a factor for both. Employing the idea that in all traditional aspects both parents are now even, I believe the custodial parent should be the one who is the most worthy of the role. The primary parent should be the one who promotes positive mental and physical growth, who genuinely loves and cares for the child(ren) and who is a good role model as demonstrated by their character and personal accomplishments.
There are a few consequences on gender inequality when women continue to win custody by default rather than by parental worthiness. In one case, the kind of woman who always has been a housewife and automatically wins custody and child support, and possibly alimony, is likely to continue staying at home with no incentive to enter the workforce, which makes her one more woman who isnāt fighting for gender equality. In addition, a woman who is working when she receives full custody, support, and maybe alimony, may decide that there is no need to continue working and leave the workplace to become a stay-at-home mom, again eliminating her as a force for gender equality. If more men were to become stay-at-home dads, there would be more room for woman in employment fields, including those of political nature where a woman can do the most in the fight for equality. Just as the role of provider has shifted from being primarily male to being almost equally a male and female role that is won on merit and not gender, the role of parent should experience a shift from being primarily female based on the same principals.
