|
Summary: The Maternal Bond was originally published in the American Journal of Family Law, and is serialized here at DadsRights.org by special arrangement with the author.
|
THE MATERNAL BOND
1992 (c) Anne P. Mitchell,
Stanford Law School
Published in: American Journal of Family Law, Volume 9, Number 3, Fall, 1995
Part 4
IV. The Family Law System
A survey of almost 700 of the divorcing couples in the Stanford Child
Custody Study found that in 12.8% of the cases where both the mother and
father indicated that they wanted the father to have custody of the
children, the court still awarded custody of the children to the
mother.20
This one statistic speaks volumes about the role that women have been
relegated to play in our society. For all the advances women have made, in
a time when women have won the Nobel Peace Prize, gone up in space, and are
being admitted to professional schools in large numbers, our family law
system still operates on the premise that a woman's place, first and
foremost, is taking care of the children. In the Stanford Child Custody
Study alone there were nearly 100 women who chose to be the non-custodial
parent. It is probably safe to assume that at least some of these women
made this choice based on a desire to pursue their career, or to avoid the
constant tension between the rigors of a particularly demanding career and
the responsibility of being the primary caretaker (or indeed to avoid
subjecting their children to the same). These are choices which are, or
should be, a woman's right to exercise as a free and equal member of
society. For the family court to determine that the woman must be the
primary caretaker, against her wishes, and at odds with her career, is
indefensible.
This is one example of how the family law system coopts women into
maternal bondage. It is a rather blatant example, given that the mother
had expressed her desire not be burdened with primary caretaker
responsibility, and the father had expressed his willingness to take on the
responsibility of custody.
More insidious, and more prevalent, is a subtle coercion which
foreshadows almost all contested custody cases, in almost all
jurisdictions.
Women who are going through a divorce or other legal custody dispute
find themselves confronted with a stark economic reality: if they get
custody, they get more money. Almost all states21 have in place a child
support formula which guarantees the mother a percentage of the father's
gross income, per capita, for child support. In many states this figure
works out to at minimum 20%-25% of the father's gross income for 1 to 2
children.
There is no need to rehash the theory of maternal subsidy at this
juncture, however it is important to consider the economic consequence of
it. Women, having already been subordinated to a role in which they are
unable to achieve self-sufficiency, often face the divorce process from a
position of under- or unemployment. Depending on a woman's educational
background, and the prevailing job market, her prospects of recouping or
achieving self-sufficiency may be quite bleak. Faced with the choice of
treading into an unclear employment situation, or continuing to provide
primary caretaking services while receiving a maternal subsidy, it is
understandable that many women opt for the latter.
But so long as the maternal subsidy exists, women will continue to
allow themselves to be pushed into the subordinated role of caregiver,
giving up their own careers, and believing that they have somehow protected
their autonomy and independence with the insurance of future child and
spousal support should divorce occur. Unfortunately this "protection" is
one more link in the chains of the maternal bond. Rather than being
protected they are being overprotected, and to no good end, not unlike when
a weak child is "protected" by an overprotective parent. Both do the
recipient more harm than good, as neither woman nor child will be allowed
to develop into an independent and responsible member of society, capable
of taking care of themself. Instead, they will always be dependent upon
their provider.
[Continued in Part 5]
19 "Should You Stay Home with Your Baby", Burton L. White, 1981, as
reprinted in The Psychology of Women: Ongoing Debates, Walsh, Yale
University Press @ p.364.
20 "Dividing the Child", id.
