Child support: The push and pull between men and women

A few days ago, a rather strange story appeared in this newspaper, tucked in between all the political frenzy and officious government statements.

A woman in Kakamega had been ordered to pay Sh3,000 per month in upkeep for her husband and two their children. Either that or she would face a five-year jail term or a Sh200,000 fine.

Something felt wrong about that story. It was uncomfortable, much like the feeling you would have if you had a pebble in your shoe.

It just does not fit, and reminds one of what French psychiatrist Franz Fanon called “cognitive dissonance” in the book Black Skin, White Masks.

“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted,” Fanon wrote.

“It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalise, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.”

The reason that innocuous story grabbed people’s attention was that it challenged their beliefs by going against the norms. Child and spousal support cases may not be a rarity in our society, but they play out in a slightly different way.

We are used to the scenario played out in the story above, but we feel that the casting director messed up. He cast actors in the wrong roles, creating an unbelievable narrative that made the audience uncomfortable.

Women are normally the accusers, men the accused. So how dare one change those traditional roles?

Before you get carried away and claim that either gender has now become fair game for the media circus that inadvertently surrounds child support cases, maybe you should consider that, more often than not, men are the most frequent abdicators of duty. Single-parent households are on the rise, and most of these are headed by women.

Sometimes that may be because the man of the house died, but, too often, it is because the man just walked out, leaving his family to fend for itself.

In August last year, the Sunday Nation carried a story detailing the worrying rise of single mothers in the country.

Based on research by Canadian sociologists, the article claimed that, by the age of 45, six out of 10 Kenyan women will likely be bringing up children by themselves.

Unlike in other countries where most reasons for single motherhood were found to be death of husband or divorce, the study showed that most Kenyan women ended up as single mothers by bearing a child out of wedlock.

To make matters worse, three out of 10 teenage girls become mothers before their 18th birthday in Kenya, and around 30 per cent of women in all age groups give birth before they are married.

If these statistics are anything to go by, it comes as no surprise that more women are dragging men to court over child support claims.

But what stands out is that a number of these cases — all the ones that have caught the media’s attention, at least — involve high profile politicians or businessmen. As recently as last week, renowned athlete Ezekiel Kemboi was sued in an Eldoret court over alleged child neglect.

By that unwelcome stroke of fate, Kemboi joined prominent politicians like Moses Wetangula, Mike Mbuvi Sonko, Soita Shitanda, Mutula Kilonzo, Fred Gumo, and Kenneth Marende, who have also found themselves on the wrong side of the law regarding the dicey matter of child support.

Even prominent businessmen such as Peter Ngugi of Thika Coffee Mills and Mombasa tycoon Madatali Chatur have found themselves answering to charges pertaining to wife and child support.

Other prominent personalities who have been embroiled in similar cases include Philip Moi (son of former president Daniel arap Moi), Thomas Wahome (pastor, Helicopter of Christ church), former Malindi MP Lucas Maitha and former Cabinet Secretary and MP Peter Oloo Aringo.

Yet, even as these cases drag on in court, the concept of children born out of wedlock is not a new one, at least not in Kenya. What is new, however, is the media attention that is being focused on the dysfunctionality of familial relationships.

All of a sudden, men accused of being negligent fathers are being paraded for the world to see, thrust reluctantly under the media spotlight, their failings and shortcomings bloodying the waters for hungry media sharks.

Each story is more titillating than the last, each personality more prominent than the one accused before him. In the course of researching for this piece, and after studying the court cases reported in the media of late regarding child support, a number of questions popped up.

Why, for instance, has there been such a proliferation of these stories in the recent past? Why are politicians’ lives increasingly turning into a prime time TV reality show?

Is it that more of them are getting lured into the big-money lifestyle of many women (the younger the better), and finding out too late that they cannot sustain it? Or are more women turning to rich men, deliberately bearing children with them as a way to riches and fame?

In the days of our forefathers, a man’s worth was measured by his ability to marry many wives, sire many children and provide for them all.

The ability to keep one’s family well-fed (the fatter the better) and grow one’s herd of cattle alongside one’s beer belly was the mark of a true man. And should a man fail to rise to the challenge, maybe because of injuries or illness, his brothers would step in to provide for his family.

Sometimes, one of the brothers would even marry the woman, in case her husband died.

Fast-forward to the 21st century, where honour is no longer the anchor to a man’s self-worth, and selfishness and greed have taken the place of duty and responsibility.

It has become normal, even okay, for a man to get a young girl pregnant then quietly leave the scene before being saddled with the messy business of diapers and bibs.

Problem is that the girl is usually too young, too naïve and too ashamed to know she deserves better than a “hit-and-run”, and in most cases, even her father’s fury is not enough to get the man to man up.

Some sort of regulation

The church might have provided some sort of moral guidance, but in all likelihood, no amount of threats of hellfire would change the character of a man who is determined to have no part in bringing up his children.

Society, therefore, needed some sort of regulation to clip the wings of men who were determined to fly away from responsibility, and it arrived in 1985 in the form of Fida, the Federation of Women Lawyers.

Now women could have access to lawyers who would fight court battles for them to at least ensure that their children did not remain unschooled while their phantom fathers burned all their wealth on the next pretty young thing.

But even with Fida, it took a while before women could confidently take the necessary legal steps to lasso their runaway baby daddies. A lot of that, it has been argued, is due to the patriarchal conditioning that makes demi-gods of men and servile subordinates of women.

A good girl is conditioned not to trouble the waters, not to create unnecessary drama that will shame her family. She is taught to patiently wait for the man to realise the error of his ways and come back home to do his duty by her.

However, things have changed. Women have become more vocal about their rights, more confident about fighting age-old patriarchy with new-age feminism.

This explains why more men are finding themselves in front of Family Court magistrates having to answer to charges ranging from marital violence to neglect of parental duty.

And because society thrives on titillating gossip and scandal, hardly have these men taken the witness stand than the media erupts in juicy details regarding the case and all those involved.

Due to the high profile nature of the accused, as well as the accompanying bank balance, some people have advanced theories that women are using their children as money-making machines, trapping wealthy men into impregnating them so that they can reap tax-free monthly incomes for many years to come.

However, that is a double-edged sword because equally convincing is the argument that these men are using their money to lure young girls into their beds, with the promise of quick riches and a cushy life.

And, to add one more twist to this tale, last week, some members of Parliament tabled a Bill wanting men to be granted equal rights in child custody and maintenance.

They are tired of footing all the bills and want the Children’s Act to be amended to compel women to contribute to the upkeep of their children after they separate from their husbands.

Reminds you of the good woman from Kakamega who will, from this month, be depositing monthly cheques for upkeep into her ex-husband’s account, doesn’t it? Yes, we have come full circle on the gender equality debate.