South Africa may reverse a trend by being the first country to acknowledge that fathers have rights too
WORKING in the media industry forces one to pay close attention to advertisements. There was one which caught my eye a picture of an incredibly cute little girl. "Mom's eyes, Uncle Bob's ears, Dad's life savings."
This struck a chord somewhere. My daughter, Aura, goes to pre-school and voluntarily takes Zulu, gym, ballet, and karate as extras. And she's not yet four years old.
I don't mind cutting back on my lifestyle to make these things available to her. Like, I'd rather be driving a convertible, but at least if I get mugged one day she'll be able to protect me.
I don't expect anything from her in return. I enjoy seeing her enjoying herself by learning -- so my motives are not exactly selfless or altruistic.
But this is a world which insists that fathers have responsibilities for providing. Mothers have the luxury of not being vilified if they stay at home to be nurturers. Fathers don't.
And when it comes to custody battles during divorce, fathers generally lose. Why? Kids are better off with their mother, the judges decide.
But that's not the end of it for Dad. He is still called upon to pay. Mom has to stay at home to look after the children, right? She can't go out to work.
But Your Honour, I would rather stay at home with the kids and let my wife work to support us.
What? Impossible! You're a man! You need to work and provide for the family.
The end result of this mess is that fathers have responsibilities in the eyes of society, but no corresponding rights.
This world we live in says fathers have a job: to provide. They can't really do that other stuff like feeding and clothing and teaching and nurturing that's the mom's job.
But fathers might be very good at this sort of thing. My brother, the Renaissance Man, looked after his three-year-old son for several months while his wife was studying classical music in India.
The general opinion is that he did a splendid job. Fact of the matter is that if he ended up in court in a custody battle, he would probably lose.
This is what makes the Constitutional Court's recent ruling on the rights of Lawrie Fraser so exciting.
Fraser, for those of you who haven't followed the story, is an unmarried father. The mother of his son, Adri Naude, did not want the child. Fraser did. Naude decided that she did not want Fraser to have the child, and instead gave him up for adoption.
Fraser challenged the adoption in the Constitutional Court. The court ruled in his favour. Excellent!
I'm firmly in the pro-choice camp in the abortion debate. Women have rights over their own bodies and should be able to terminate their pregnancies if they wish.
But after birth, mothers should have neither more nor less rights than fathers. Fathers are held responsible by society for providing for children, and they should have as much of an opportunity to take care of the children themselves.
Parents can -- and do -- share responsibilities. Being a good provider, nurturer or playdough maker doesn't depend on what's in your underwear.
Tiny Tim, the son of Naude and Fraser, has been caught in a tug-of-war between the mother who wants to give him away and the father who doesn't want her to.
I really don't know where he would be better off -- with his adoptive parents, or with his biological father.
But at least, in this country, the mother's word is no longer law.