In the light of Father’s day and the recent Santa Barbara shootings, The Washington Post released an article discussing a solution that will allegedly end violence against women. The answer: married dads. The reason: “marriage seems to cause men to behave better”.
According to this article, “married biological fathers” are more likely to “protect women, directly and indirectly, from the threat of male violence”. This article also claims that women who are married to their child’s biological father will be less likely to experience violence. Children are also apparently safer living in a household with both married, biological parents as opposed to a single mother with “a boyfriend”.
It seems as though the use of the term “male violence” in this article denotes a unique form of violence that is an inherent part of being “male” and is therefore excusable or harder to prevent (a common idea among rape apologists and white supremacists). Additionally, this article plays into the heterosexist and homophobic myth that queer parents are inferior. By reminding the reader consistently that they are talking about “biological fathers”, the article is in turn excluding parents who do not (or cannot) take part in the process of conception. Perhaps the authors of this article don’t realize how large this population is. Perhaps they don’t realize that their sweeping generalizations about who is or is not inherently violent toward their partners and children are actually feeding into the violence that queer and single parents experience.
Any argument that avoids putting the responsibility of violence in the hands of the people committing violence is by default founded on victim-blaming. Nowhere is there any acknowledgment of the responsibility of violent people to stop being violent. Nowhere is there any recognition of the prevalence of intimate partner violence, especially between people who are married.
What this article is essentially suggesting is this: single, independent, unmarried, adoptive, or queer parents, along with parents or individuals who use reproductive technologies in order to build their own family, are causing the violence that they and their children experience, simply because of the lack of a marriage certificate and blood-relations. It is true that the queer community in particular experiences a high rate of violence, but I don’t think it is attributed to marriage or child-raising. I think it’s most likely because we’re fighting battles that are a lot more pertinent and go beyond the assumed desire of a nuclear family.
Marriage, in this case, is not the solution.
In the light of the Santa Barbara shooting (among others) which is proof that rejecting a man’s request for sex, marriage, or dates can get you killed, how can we expect anyone to feel safe enough to, by choice, bind themselves legally to another person who holds more institutional power over them? People are already being threatened into marriage so that their abusive partners have legal ties to them. Young women and femme-identified people are already being made to feel guilty for having standards and boundaries. When divorce is costly and not always an option, why would we encourage each other to pursue an unsustainable marriage with someone who is abusive? How on earth would marriage stop someone from being violent? How do we distinguish between healthy relationships and those involving threats and coercion?
“JUST GET MARRIED, DUH!”
No. Because depending on where I am I can’t anyways. Because a wedding or an “I Love You” does not stop the threat of violence (and can sometimes perpetuate it). Because having no legal autonomy is threatening to me as a femme-identified person. Because binding myself to a person who is abusive in an attempt to tame them is more destructive than staying uncommitted. Because “marriage” and “healthy committed relationship” are not synonymous.
The article also completely lacks insight on how, exactly, a married biological father will protect rather than abuse. It explains, quite simply, that by being married, men will feel more of an engagement to their children, and will “be more attentive to the expectations of friends and kin”. These claims affirm the gendered role of the “man of the house” as provider of safety and engagement, without any real critical analysis or explanation of what it means to be a man, father, or protector.
Since this explanation is not totally satisfying for me, and not one I can identify with as someone who comes from a family history of badass moms and flakey dads, I spent a bit of time thinking about other ways married biological fathers have been known to protect their children. The first thing that came to mind was a scene in Clueless when Cher is going out on a date with Christian, the new boy in town. Before leaving, Cher’s dad, Mel, pulls Christian aside and says “Anything happens to my daughter, I got a .45 and a shovel. I doubt anybody would miss you”.
This seems to be a common narrative of fathers attempting to protect their daughters from a pursued love interest in movies and television shows. It is a perfect example of how the need or desire to protect is often rooted in misogyny; assuming that women cannot take care of or protect themselves. It is also an example of how protection can manifest as more violence. It’s time to think more critically about what it means to be protective and not possessive as a parent and partner. We need to start asking ourselves if we are enacting different forms of abuse in the name of love and protection.
It is true that the way I navigate relationships with men is often attributed to the fact that my biological father was never around when I was growing up. However, if I’ve learned anything in my lifetime, it wasn’t from the absence of my father, but the fierce presence of my mom. She’s taught me a lot about how to stand up for myself and be strong even when I’m feeling incredibly weak. The violence that I’ve experienced is not something that I blame on her just because she raised me and my sister as a young single mother (as if she hasn’t received enough unsolicited societal scrutiny in her lifetime for that already). And I don’t blame my father, who I probably wouldn’t recognize if he walked into this room right now, nor do I care, quite frankly. I blame the people who have abused me. I blame the way society is overly apologetic of white men who do harm. I blame misogyny and the overall disrespect and devalidation of women and femmes.
Cultural norms surrounding marriage have been in an ever-changing state. For quite some time the idealization of the nuclear family consisting of “man”, “woman”, and child(ren) has been challenged. With these changing norms, perhaps we should focus less on marriage itself and more on what it means to carry out healthy relationships with the people we love and the families we have – whether they are chosen or biological. Maybe we should be teaching others, regardless of parental, marital, or educational status, about what it means to protect and respect each others’ boundaries.
The last line of this article writes: “So, women: if you’re the product of a good marriage, and feel safer as a consequence, lift a glass to dear old dad this Sunday”. For this Father’s Day, I would like to propose something a bit different.
Let’s not thank our fathers just because they have stuck around, signed a legal document, or still wear their wedding ring and consider themselves married to their wife. That isn’t enough. Let’s thank the fathers who are active bystanders in our communities that are swimming with subtle forms of violence. Let’s thank the fathers who are actively engaged in healthy relationships with their friends and loved ones. Let’s thank the fathers who are teaching their children about consent, love, and respect. Let’s thank the fathers who are combating patterns of violence, who aren’t unapologetically abusive. Let’s thank the fathers who don’t kick their children out of the house for being trans or queer. Let’s thank the fathers who love and celebrate their mothers. Let’s thank the fathers who watch the following video and take it seriously.
