|
Eileen gets one-sided
I began to write this as an email response to a comment I received about yesterday's Stephen Fagan item. When I got over a certain number of words, I realized there was another entry sitting inside me on this subject. You can blame my friend Rhonda - and Globe columnist Eileen MacNamara.
Rhonda got the ball rolling by pointing out that it was a little disingenuous for Fagan's daughters (notice they are never Kurth's daughters) to go on Larry King only to say that they just wanted to keep their lives private.
It's true. If you decide to keep your thoughts to yourself, then you shouldn't go on TV and say you're keeping your thoughts to yourself. However, Rhonda, the primary point of that little display was for them to indicate their support for Fagan, showing that he's really a nice guy after all.
For it seems, unfortunately, that the verdict was only half the battle. The Globe had two stories and a column about it today. Kurtz and Fagan both seem to feel that they have some sort of reputation to redeem, and Fagan in particular is conducting what amounts to a minor PR campaign in order to counteract what he believes is a smear campaign from the Kurtz camp.
Huh? I mean, he did plead guilty. I don't think he's an intrinsically bad man, and I agreed with the verdict, but he is a kidnapper and there is a fairly substantial body of evidence that he's a deceptive person who has been known to exploit others to get what he wants. If Kurtz calls him a kidnapper and a con man, then I don't think that's slander.
On the other hand, if we take people like MacNamara - who, after her screeds last year on Louise Woodward and the Eappens, is not someone I expect a balanced response from where parenthood is concerned - we can see exactly the kind of collateral damage Fagan is, or should be, scared of.
MacNamara argued this morning (so as not to put words in her mouth, I will say that this is only my interpretation) that the trial outcome is an affront to women because there's an implicit double standard in the way we view fatherhood and motherhood.
She argues that, in male parents, any reasonable effort is applauded, whereas in female parents, no recognition ever comes and the mother must adhere to flawless standards of conduct to avoid being chastised.
She notes that the Department of Revenue has a program going to send little notes of recognition to fathers who pay their child support properly - i.e. obey the law - which she obviously thinks is ridiculous:
DOR Commissioner Frederick A. Laskey gets no more than a few dozen responses from his letters soliciting nominations from children lucky enough to get their support checks on time. Could it be that those children's mothers take some offense at the idea of rewarding fathers for doing what is expected of mothers?
I don't disagree that the standard stinks - but it stinks in more than one way.
Yes, we take motherhood for granted - given. On the other hand, when there's a divorce, we still tend to assume it was the male whose behavior "caused" it. Men are still given custody of children much more seldom, even in some cases where the mother has characteristics that, in a man, would be enough to instantly mark him as unfit to be a single parent.
Yes, we still have a cliché picture of women that holds them to a higher standard of parenting. That same cliché says that women are automatically better suited to be parents.
Do I think our collective standards are fair? No. Of course not. But I think it's wrong of MacNamara to concentrate only on the unfairness on one side. How about arguing in favor of throwing out the whole mess of clichés and starting over?
Meanwhile, I have now reached saturation point on the Fagan story - in exactly the same way I reached saturation on the Woodward story. Call me old-fashioned, but I have this strange idea that when the verdict is rendered, the game is over, and at that point, everyone should shut up and go home to nurse their wounds in silence.
But apparently it's too late for that. Way too late.
© Columbine
|
|
