![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This post was made using a new extension for Firefox, Deepest Sender. You can use it to post to your blog from your browser. It seems to be working well so far. Give it a try.
Mar. 23rd, 2006
This post was made using a new extension for Firefox, Deepest Sender. You can use it to post to your blog from your browser. It seems to be working well so far. Give it a try.
This column, by Kathleen Parker, bugs the heck out of me. I think it's because of her assumptions that Every Child Must Have a Daddy, and Fathers Guarantee Happiness. Obviously this is not true, but she seems to see fatherhood, and having fathers in the home, as some sort of Holy Grail, a standard everyone should strive for.
First of all, sometimes this is simply not possible. A certain percentage of men are abusive, disappear, or are simply uninterested in fatherhood. It seems to me that the growing anti-female atmosphere in America today encourages this abandonment of responsibility, based on the usual "damned bitch should've kept her legs shut" nonsense (well, hey, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander). Personally, I think some half-hearted jackass hanging around, berating and fighting with the mother of his child, is worse than no father at all. Of course, most single mothers struggle financially, and there is something to be said for forcing the sperm donor to pay up, no matter whether or not he gets to see his kid. That tot didn't come about due to an immaculate conception, after all. But this idea of "the father should be in the picture every time," and "the kids are always damaged by the lack thereof" doesn't cut it in real life, I think.
Mostly, it's because I think kids are a lot more resilient than adults believe. I think the vast majority would cheerfully adjust to having a happy, healthy, fatherless atmosphere in the home if given a chance. I don't believe a penis is required to tuck a child in at night. Truthfully, a lot of children (mainly of the male persuasion) would do well to be surrounded by strong, empowered female role models. At the very least, they would learn how to treat their future wives and girlfriends.
Also, I don't believe children's wishes should be allowed to dominate a household. As the adult--we'll assume a loving single mother; I know there are exceptions, but the exceptions are not what I'm discussing, so keep your misogynist remarks to yourself--the mother can and should make the final decision for the good of her family, and if this means living without a father, so be it. As I said, most kids will adjust. Some of the worst families I've seen is where the kids are set atop the altar and worshipped, and the parents (and/or mother) have no life. Sure, kids need to know you love them, but they also need to know they're not the center of the universe, and your life will not come to a halt for them. That will certainly prepare them for the working world, where they'll learn right quick There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
The final sentence of Parker's column bothers me:
"A future world filled with fatherless children - bereft of half their identity and robbed of a father's love, discipline and authority - won't likely be a pleasant place to live."
Let's see, what's wrong with this scenario? For one thing, it assumes that people will be so fixated on their fatherless childhood that they won't be able to move past it, and in most cases, I think that's simply not true. Even if the kid was to cry, "Waaah, where's Daddy?" for a while, as they get older they'll probably realize that given the circumstances mentioned above--abusive, vindictive, or indifferent men--it's much better that Daddy wasn't around. Also, I don't know where Kathleen Parker gets off thinking that mothers can't love and discipline their children just as well as fathers. This may be tied in with the nonsensical mention of "authority" (as if Mom and possibly Grandma couldn't be the ultimate authority) and "bereft of half their identity."
In other words, the good old Patriarchy raising its head yet again, with the idea of the Man of the House trumping all else.
The column comes perilously close to a Men's Rights pity party. Should women be forced to tolerate their childrens' fathers "for the sake of the child," no matter if the fathers are complete idiots? I don't think so. Of course, every case is unique. Still, I don't think "deleting Dad" should automatically be considered a bad thing.
First of all, sometimes this is simply not possible. A certain percentage of men are abusive, disappear, or are simply uninterested in fatherhood. It seems to me that the growing anti-female atmosphere in America today encourages this abandonment of responsibility, based on the usual "damned bitch should've kept her legs shut" nonsense (well, hey, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander). Personally, I think some half-hearted jackass hanging around, berating and fighting with the mother of his child, is worse than no father at all. Of course, most single mothers struggle financially, and there is something to be said for forcing the sperm donor to pay up, no matter whether or not he gets to see his kid. That tot didn't come about due to an immaculate conception, after all. But this idea of "the father should be in the picture every time," and "the kids are always damaged by the lack thereof" doesn't cut it in real life, I think.
Mostly, it's because I think kids are a lot more resilient than adults believe. I think the vast majority would cheerfully adjust to having a happy, healthy, fatherless atmosphere in the home if given a chance. I don't believe a penis is required to tuck a child in at night. Truthfully, a lot of children (mainly of the male persuasion) would do well to be surrounded by strong, empowered female role models. At the very least, they would learn how to treat their future wives and girlfriends.
Also, I don't believe children's wishes should be allowed to dominate a household. As the adult--we'll assume a loving single mother; I know there are exceptions, but the exceptions are not what I'm discussing, so keep your misogynist remarks to yourself--the mother can and should make the final decision for the good of her family, and if this means living without a father, so be it. As I said, most kids will adjust. Some of the worst families I've seen is where the kids are set atop the altar and worshipped, and the parents (and/or mother) have no life. Sure, kids need to know you love them, but they also need to know they're not the center of the universe, and your life will not come to a halt for them. That will certainly prepare them for the working world, where they'll learn right quick There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
The final sentence of Parker's column bothers me:
"A future world filled with fatherless children - bereft of half their identity and robbed of a father's love, discipline and authority - won't likely be a pleasant place to live."
Let's see, what's wrong with this scenario? For one thing, it assumes that people will be so fixated on their fatherless childhood that they won't be able to move past it, and in most cases, I think that's simply not true. Even if the kid was to cry, "Waaah, where's Daddy?" for a while, as they get older they'll probably realize that given the circumstances mentioned above--abusive, vindictive, or indifferent men--it's much better that Daddy wasn't around. Also, I don't know where Kathleen Parker gets off thinking that mothers can't love and discipline their children just as well as fathers. This may be tied in with the nonsensical mention of "authority" (as if Mom and possibly Grandma couldn't be the ultimate authority) and "bereft of half their identity."
In other words, the good old Patriarchy raising its head yet again, with the idea of the Man of the House trumping all else.
The column comes perilously close to a Men's Rights pity party. Should women be forced to tolerate their childrens' fathers "for the sake of the child," no matter if the fathers are complete idiots? I don't think so. Of course, every case is unique. Still, I don't think "deleting Dad" should automatically be considered a bad thing.
Tags:
This column, by Kathleen Parker, bugs the heck out of me. I think it's because of her assumptions that Every Child Must Have a Daddy, and Fathers Guarantee Happiness. Obviously this is not true, but she seems to see fatherhood, and having fathers in the home, as some sort of Holy Grail, a standard everyone should strive for.
First of all, sometimes this is simply not possible. A certain percentage of men are abusive, disappear, or are simply uninterested in fatherhood. It seems to me that the growing anti-female atmosphere in America today encourages this abandonment of responsibility, based on the usual "damned bitch should've kept her legs shut" nonsense (well, hey, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander). Personally, I think some half-hearted jackass hanging around, berating and fighting with the mother of his child, is worse than no father at all. Of course, most single mothers struggle financially, and there is something to be said for forcing the sperm donor to pay up, no matter whether or not he gets to see his kid. That tot didn't come about due to an immaculate conception, after all. But this idea of "the father should be in the picture every time," and "the kids are always damaged by the lack thereof" doesn't cut it in real life, I think.
Mostly, it's because I think kids are a lot more resilient than adults believe. I think the vast majority would cheerfully adjust to having a happy, healthy, fatherless atmosphere in the home if given a chance. I don't believe a penis is required to tuck a child in at night. Truthfully, a lot of children (mainly of the male persuasion) would do well to be surrounded by strong, empowered female role models. At the very least, they would learn how to treat their future wives and girlfriends.
Also, I don't believe children's wishes should be allowed to dominate a household. As the adult--we'll assume a loving single mother; I know there are exceptions, but the exceptions are not what I'm discussing, so keep your misogynist remarks to yourself--the mother can and should make the final decision for the good of her family, and if this means living without a father, so be it. As I said, most kids will adjust. Some of the worst families I've seen is where the kids are set atop the altar and worshipped, and the parents (and/or mother) have no life. Sure, kids need to know you love them, but they also need to know they're not the center of the universe, and your life will not come to a halt for them. That will certainly prepare them for the working world, where they'll learn right quick There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
The final sentence of Parker's column bothers me:
"A future world filled with fatherless children - bereft of half their identity and robbed of a father's love, discipline and authority - won't likely be a pleasant place to live."
Let's see, what's wrong with this scenario? For one thing, it assumes that people will be so fixated on their fatherless childhood that they won't be able to move past it, and in most cases, I think that's simply not true. Even if the kid was to cry, "Waaah, where's Daddy?" for a while, as they get older they'll probably realize that given the circumstances mentioned above--abusive, vindictive, or indifferent men--it's much better that Daddy wasn't around. Also, I don't know where Kathleen Parker gets off thinking that mothers can't love and discipline their children just as well as fathers. This may be tied in with the nonsensical mention of "authority" (as if Mom and possibly Grandma couldn't be the ultimate authority) and "bereft of half their identity."
In other words, the good old Patriarchy raising its head yet again, with the idea of the Man of the House trumping all else.
The column comes perilously close to a Men's Rights pity party. Should women be forced to tolerate their childrens' fathers "for the sake of the child," no matter if the fathers are complete idiots? I don't think so. Of course, every case is unique. Still, I don't think "deleting Dad" should automatically be considered a bad thing.
First of all, sometimes this is simply not possible. A certain percentage of men are abusive, disappear, or are simply uninterested in fatherhood. It seems to me that the growing anti-female atmosphere in America today encourages this abandonment of responsibility, based on the usual "damned bitch should've kept her legs shut" nonsense (well, hey, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander). Personally, I think some half-hearted jackass hanging around, berating and fighting with the mother of his child, is worse than no father at all. Of course, most single mothers struggle financially, and there is something to be said for forcing the sperm donor to pay up, no matter whether or not he gets to see his kid. That tot didn't come about due to an immaculate conception, after all. But this idea of "the father should be in the picture every time," and "the kids are always damaged by the lack thereof" doesn't cut it in real life, I think.
Mostly, it's because I think kids are a lot more resilient than adults believe. I think the vast majority would cheerfully adjust to having a happy, healthy, fatherless atmosphere in the home if given a chance. I don't believe a penis is required to tuck a child in at night. Truthfully, a lot of children (mainly of the male persuasion) would do well to be surrounded by strong, empowered female role models. At the very least, they would learn how to treat their future wives and girlfriends.
Also, I don't believe children's wishes should be allowed to dominate a household. As the adult--we'll assume a loving single mother; I know there are exceptions, but the exceptions are not what I'm discussing, so keep your misogynist remarks to yourself--the mother can and should make the final decision for the good of her family, and if this means living without a father, so be it. As I said, most kids will adjust. Some of the worst families I've seen is where the kids are set atop the altar and worshipped, and the parents (and/or mother) have no life. Sure, kids need to know you love them, but they also need to know they're not the center of the universe, and your life will not come to a halt for them. That will certainly prepare them for the working world, where they'll learn right quick There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
The final sentence of Parker's column bothers me:
"A future world filled with fatherless children - bereft of half their identity and robbed of a father's love, discipline and authority - won't likely be a pleasant place to live."
Let's see, what's wrong with this scenario? For one thing, it assumes that people will be so fixated on their fatherless childhood that they won't be able to move past it, and in most cases, I think that's simply not true. Even if the kid was to cry, "Waaah, where's Daddy?" for a while, as they get older they'll probably realize that given the circumstances mentioned above--abusive, vindictive, or indifferent men--it's much better that Daddy wasn't around. Also, I don't know where Kathleen Parker gets off thinking that mothers can't love and discipline their children just as well as fathers. This may be tied in with the nonsensical mention of "authority" (as if Mom and possibly Grandma couldn't be the ultimate authority) and "bereft of half their identity."
In other words, the good old Patriarchy raising its head yet again, with the idea of the Man of the House trumping all else.
The column comes perilously close to a Men's Rights pity party. Should women be forced to tolerate their childrens' fathers "for the sake of the child," no matter if the fathers are complete idiots? I don't think so. Of course, every case is unique. Still, I don't think "deleting Dad" should automatically be considered a bad thing.
Tags: