FAIRNESS IN FAMILIES INDEX - THE FATHERHOOD INSTITUTE'S REPORT IGNORES FAMILY CHOICE AND THE POLICY IMPLICATIONS FOR FATHERS

The Fatherhood Institute is an organisation that is hard to pin down in terms of what it stands for and whether it's definition of equality on fathers and mothers is based on coercion or choice.

It does great things like attacking politicians who just slag off dads  because it is all their fault and to encourage government policy to include fathers (the current family law review is absolutely crucial) but then produces a report last week - the Fairness in Families Index (FiFI) - that seems to say that Britain is down the league table last week (18th of 21).

This would not necessarily be a problem but it is the basis that it makes such an issue that is troubling as would be the unintended consequences of even more efforts to allegedly 'even' up the playing field. This would lead to even more discrimination against men and fathers than we have already.

The ranking is based on ten factors including the number of men in the part-time workforce, % of women in senior positions, % of women in Parliament and the gender pay gap, the amount of time spent caring for a child per gender, amongst other things. Basically, the lower down the figure, the lower the fairness score.

The problems with this are many fold.

Firstly, it by effectively suggesting that fathers and mothers should not choose their domestic arrangements when they have children unless it fits with variables in the Fairness in Families Index.

The Institute is basically stating that if a couple decide that the man as part of the family unit should be the one (if they have to choose of course) to work longer hours, or be an MP, be in a senior position, to invest more of his time in building a career etc , whilst his wife/partner chooses to spend more time bringing up their children then this a bad and unequal thing. If it does not fit the Index criteria then it is a bad thing.

Part of the genetic make up of men and women is that many women when they have children want to spend time bringing them up in their early years at least (thereby reducing their work) while the man works full time and does all he can to ensure the household is financially OK. Of course, and rightly, it happens the other way around or that both men and women work equally as hard and bring up the children.

To the Fatherhood Institute, their interest is in stereotypes and not about individual household choice. The reason there are less women in Parliament is because less want to be politicians and also it makes no difference to how 'man-friendly' family policy is (We had 13 years of an anti-male Labour Government and this government is no better!). Just because there are less women in senior positions or there is a gender pay gap (the biggest myth ever perpetrated to undermine men is to suggest the gap is due to discrimination) does not men there is not fairness in families if the father and mother make a mature decision about it.

It is almost as if the Fatherhood Institutes's view of family fairness is about circumventing mature and rational decisions made by the father and mother. They rae saying they want more women in management positions because it is fairer to the family, but that may not be what mothers and fathers in each individual family want for their family unit.

The second issue is of course our old chestnut - equality in the UK means that some people are more equal than others as well as the unintended consequences of the changes to 'even' things up are for fathers.

It counts as a fairness negative that there are not enough women in Parliament, in senior positions and too many work part-time (has the Fatherhood Institute asked those mothers working part time if this is something they and their husbands/partners are happy about?).

So to change things more quickly than they are already would mean more positive discrimination to get more women into Parliament and into senior positions. This means positive discrimination/action (do not be fooled by those who believe that positive action is different to positive discrimination - the latter is the outcome of the former). This means more all-women shortlists and gender quotas. To get more women into part time roles does this mean not employing men in full time roles (and switching topart time) or stopping women from choosing to work part time? 

All these would help improve the position of the UK in the Fairness in Families Index (FiFI) but to ensure this happens would mean discriminating against fathers and their families because it would make it harder for a father to be a MP, or be in senior position or work full time. Is this what the Fatherhood Institute want?

And of course, is this in the best interest of the family, the children and the mother. Of course not, but according to the Fatherhood Institute's index it would be.

In summary, the Fairness in Families Index is a PR wheeze looking for a headline and to give some sort of credibility to the Fatherhood Institute. But actually its definition of what is fair and what the policy response would need to be to make it even more fairer would damage fathers and their families.

The Fatherhood Institute needs to think a lot deeper about what it does and what it stands for.

Posted by Skimmington 

   

Comments

[Groan]

The Fatherhood institute is an interesting example of an organisation coming out of the Feminist movement. The past head of the Institute was an ardent feminist. The result is that its settled view is that men should be more involved with children because that helps women. On the plus side this means the Institute is very much behind father's being involved with their children. On the down side it takes this position in order to support a feminist view that this is to free women up to pursue their careers. Hence the rather odd collection of indicators chosen (does anyone seriously think the sex of 600 MPs reflects anything about a population of 60 million people?). The Mens Coalition (of which the FI is one) all share this somewhat confused stance. As you say there is overwhelming evidence that men and women choose roles based on natural proclivities and simple practicalities. The tediously oft quoted Sweden still has a marked "gender pay gap",has more occupational segregation(with a much higher proportion of the female workforce in the state sector)and proportionately fewer women in management despite years of "equality" policy. This is the result of people taking advantage of the policy in ways the policy makers dissaprove. Swedish women avail themselves fully of family friendly policies and consequently avoid the private sector,management and presured jobs, in order to look after their families or achieve a "balance". Swedish men continue to work long hours, in the private sector, have to be made to take compulsary paternity leave and strive to get promotion. Their population's continued lack of cooperation with the policy continually exercises the Swedish political elite.

So two cheers for the FI. Any organisation cheering for fathers (you'll find the FI isn't so keen on "men")has to be welcomed but this report demonstrated the down side of those men's organisations born out of feminism.

[Groan]

Sorry to go on but the quote from Dame Julie Mellor on why she chaired Fathers Direct (which became the Fatherhood Institute) neatly explains the duality ih the FI.
"I am delighted to take the role
as chair of Fathers Direct.
I am frequently asked why I, a
woman and well known
advocate for better protection
and support for women, took on
the leadership of an
organisation about fathers.
There are three reasons.
First, the needs of children. The
research evidence is
unequivocal: fatherhood is an
asset to children and they need
a society that supports active
fatherhood and challenges low
expectations of fathers.
Second, gender equality. When
I was Chair of the Equal
Opportunities Commission, my
son asked me “What are you
doing for boys and men?” The
needs of women and men are
interdependent, and supporting
the role of men in caring is the
next front line of the struggle for
gender equality: Fathers Direct is
at a front line of the debate.
Third, I wanted to put my time
into something that could really
bring about change – and
Fathers Direct, with its gifted
team, is just such an
organisation."

[Discount Air Jordan]

Aloha lovely!
Your blog is quite applaudable!
Here's cheers to you this festive season!
Keep up the brilliant posts......