The Biology of Fatherhood

I'm happy to have a discussion about what makes a good father and why they are important in children's lives. But let's start with the men who are there.

Too many women on here are happy with mere crumbs from the father of their children - they get little support, little input into the day to day slog and the dad takes the kids out on his own for a couple of hours at the weekend and he - and society - tell him he's a fucking awesome father.

Society and women needs to have much better expectations of men in ostensibly loving relationships before 'feminists' start putting the boot in to single women.

And if a father figure is so bloody important to goosefoot, perhaps she should have a bit more respect for the women in her family who are trying to give that to their children. Because right now, it seems to me they can't win.

I also wonder what is considered to be good outcome for children. Some people go along fine and then have a breakdown in their forties, some kids go off the rails then the penny drops and they get their lives together. Some children have lovely childhoods and still go off the rails. One of the nicest families I ever knew had to deal with their son committing suicide in his early twenties.

Personally, if a child of mine entered the army or became a banker, I would consider myself a failure, but I'm sure that would be put down as a success by the researchers.

Surely that depends on your relationships with your own parents though. What does a mum do that a dad can't?

You see that's the problem, I can't quantify it. The nearest I can come to explaining it is something to do with why I don't want to share single-sex spaces with male-bodied people. For me, it's not just that some predatory men might abuse this access. I do not think that I should have to share an intimate space with men - period. But there is a wider part of my intimate being that I can't share with male-bodied people and this means, for me personally, my dad could not have parented me in the same way as my mum.

On the other hand, I know that when I was growing up some of my friends really benefited from having positive fathers or father figures. I did not have this and know that I am missing something because of it. But I can't quantify it.

I know some people are getting upset because they are taking this discussion to imply criticism of single mothers - but this is certainly not my intention. There are thousands of different permutations of mothers and fathers with different characteristics bringing up children all of whom have different personalities and different responses to their situations. No one has one hundred per cent perfect upbringing and we are all compensating for deficits in one way or another.

But I do not agree that mothers and fathers are interchangeable even though many single mothers and fathers are doing amazing jobs and many couples are not. And I do think that some of the difference is in our biologies in ways that are again difficult to quantify. And I don't think we should stifle debate even though some people seem to want to make it a taboo topic.

There's a nasty undercurrent of attacking single mothers on this thread which I'm finding pretty distasteful

Many men who are married with kids pay zero attention to their children and consider their financial contribution as doing their bit for the family. How do their children fare?

👏Thank you orchid

The vilification and lived experiences of single mothers seems to have taken a complete back step to the trans issue wrt to women's rights.

If you are a feminist you don't bash single mothers, you don't have any right to ridicule domestic violence survivors and widows, etc. Most importantly, you don't get to belittle their children and make predictions on their long term well being based on deadbeat fathers, especially when said single mothers work their butt's off for the betterment of their children's futures.

Fuck off to the far side of fuck previous posters.

I read the article. It was clear in its message that the mere presence of a father is insufficient. Cold, distant or even downright abusive fathers clearly are no good for children. Fathers need to be genuinely involved and engaged. Sitting in front of the telly isn't enough.

How did that morph into "men paying zero attention to kids"? Where did you pick that up from?

Of course there's no single formula for parenting and many single mothers and lesbian families do a great job in raising happy children.
However, if there is a general trend of children doing well in heterosexual partnerships, especially if the father takes a very involved and supportive role, why should this angle not be researched more and commented upon?

The vast majority of relationships are heterosexual and therefore children will be raised in heterosexual family dynamics.
Single parenting is bloody hard and many women do their best, but I don't think most single mums start out with the assumption that's how they want to raise their children? It's usually a situation that arises after a relationship breakdown or abuse or death of a spouse etc. Many heterosexual mothers want happy partnerships with a man who is a hands-on father. Surely this isn't a controversial point?

there is a sense that as long as there is someone it will be ok, and so the moms don't worry too much about a permanent stable father

There tends to be a new boyfriend every year or two years for the women, usually moved in within about three months

in households where there is no father, there might tend to be a series of boyfriends

Oh sorry, it's just goosefoot who thinks single mothers are shit parents who move random men in. My mistake.

Statistically, children from single parent and lesbian families do as well as those from het families if there is no fiscal disadvantage. Unfortunately we all know that single mothers frequently live in poverty.

Many men who are married with kids pay zero attention to their children and consider their financial contribution as doing their bit for the family. How do their children fare?

It's just not that simple as 'families need fathers' and I think the article is pop culture rubbish I'm afraid.

Huh?! How did you infer that?

There's a nasty undercurrent of attacking single mothers on this thread which I'm finding pretty distasteful

I'm not sure that the overall numbers of single parent or step parent households is all that different either.

It isn't that long ago that it was common place for women to die in childbirth, men in wars or industrial accidents. A lot of children always were growing up without one or other biological parent.

There are far more kids born into fatherless families

And far fewer women forced into abusive marriages because of the shame of having a child outside wedlock.

I honestly don't think things used to be much better. Teenage pregnancy rates are far lower than they used to be.

www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/18/how-uk-halved-teenage-pregnancy-rate-public-health-strategy

I think overall there has been a real loss of fathers and also father figures through the 20th century.

There are far more kids born into fatherless families, and this tends to be higher in some demographics as well.

I think it's likely the case that a stable step-parent from a young age can fulfil a similar role. The problem though is if we say, well, the father is not so important really, it undermines the whole idea of needing a stable father at all, you end up wth no father around and no step-father around. I see this pattern a lot on one side of my family, there is a sense that as long as there is someone it will be ok, and so the moms don't worry too much about a permanent stable father and the dads don't hold themselves to that either. There tends to be a new boyfriend every year or two years for the women, usually moved in within about three months, and the men "parent" the step kids for that time as well as spending some time with their own kids.

It seem like the danger of women staying with really bad men has to be in balance with a sort of social push toward stable relationships.

It's also true that there really aren't many extended relatives around, nor are their many men teaching younger kids in schools. A lot times even groups like scouts can be female run and have as many girls as boys.

As someone with a son I really don't see a lot of serious thought given to the need for boys to have males to whom they can look to when forming their sense of what healthy masculinity might look like. There is actually a lot more available for girls in that area.

The problem with studies like this comes from the fact that personality traits are at least 50% heritable, according to twin studies.

So it's possible that the kind of 'positive' psychological traits that lead people them to do well in life could be the same traits that lead to them staying together as a couple, and that their children then also do well because they inherit those positive traits.

Until these kind of studies are able to control for personality traits, in order to separate out the influence of heritability, it's always going to be really difficult to drawn any firm conclusions.

It's when I think of my relationship with my mum and dad. Would I have wanted the type of relationship with my dad as I had with my mum? Noooo! Absolutely not.

Surely that depends on your relationships with your own parents though.

What does a mum do that a dad can't?

I don't think male and female influences are interchangeable and children need both to grow into rounded human beings. I don't think those influences need come from biological parents though.

ArnoldWhatshisknickers has framed this point much better than what I was trying to convey. :)

I think that aside from biology, they pretty much are, and that it's gender theory that suggests that there are masculine and feminine ways to parent.

I think the physical acts of parenting such as feeding, bathing, reading bedtime stories, going to the park etc can be done by either sex.

However, is it not the case that children form their identity and concept of themselves and others based on their parents? I have no real knowledge in this area - Do they not form an understanding of themselves based on the parent of the same sex while learning how to relate to the opposite sex from the relationship with the parent of the opposite sex?
Which is why, for example, daughters with a poor relationship with their fathers are more at risk of engaging in sexually promiscuous behaviour from an early age etc.

All impossible to untangle I suspect!

Yes, I agree - difficult to know.

I think that aside from biology, they pretty much are, and that it's gender theory that suggests that there are masculine and feminine ways to parent.

Do you know, there is something so interesting in what you say. I actually fundamentally disagree with you, but why?

I could try and drag up some kind of clever reasoning I suppose but it's not that.

It's when I think of my relationship with my mum and dad. Would I have wanted the type of relationship with my dad as I had with my mum? Noooo! Absolutely not. But the reaction is visceral - it comes from my body and not my mind. I wanted a mum-type relationship with my mum and a dad one with my dad and the two are not the same - so my body says.

This is why I think biology is important - the body is not just a machine it's part of the mind in ways we don't know about.

Having said that I'm not saying that my body is right!

But I don't believe male and female parents are interchangeable

I would disagree somewhat. I don't think male and female influences are interchangeable and children need both to grow into rounded human beings. I don't think those influences need come from biological parents though. I have known too many people adopted, brought up by step fathers, from single parent households etc who grew into happy, well adjusted adults to think that.

As NonnyMouse suggests, I think the bigger issue is breakdown of extended, rather than nuclear, families in the modern world.

MrsTerryPratchett yes elephants live in matriarchal herds. It's been a number of years since I came across the article. I distinctly remember it being about males, so I've just gone looking for it again.

I've misremembered the details - they were killing rhinos and the lack of older males wasn't because of poachers, but the people running the nature reserve that moved the baby elephants but not the adults.
Either way, the lack of male role models had pretty bad consequences and older males do influence and control younger ones which helps them learn how to behave in their species.

www.cbsnews.com/news/the-delinquents/

www.nature.com/articles/35044191

The article includes the rather unsurprising observation that

"Several research projects have focused on how a father’s incarceration can harm children"

But I don't believe male and female parents are interchangable. It's the idea that biology is irrelevant that gives us gender theory.

I think that aside from biology, they pretty much are, and that it's gender theory that suggests that there are masculine and feminine ways to parent.

I do wonder how much of that missing feeling is a result of being different to others , different to the norm, rather than something fundamental?

A child I knew had a huge personality shift the day she accidentally found out she was adopted. Until then she never expressed feelings of not belonging or being different. AT some point, she convinced herself she always knew, but it felt like retro-fitting a narrative.

All impossible to untangle I suspect!

I think it is quite clear that fathers have a biological link with their offspring. Half of our biological makeup we owe to our fathers. Through this biological fact, we are linked to a whole line of genetic heritage. This biological and genetic heritage is an integral part of our psychological makeup and our identities in ways that we cannot quantify.

I have, however, read some heartbreaking stories from the adult children of sperm donors who feel that part of them is missing. I believe some of them are now trying to sue sperm banks in order to discover the identity of their biological fathers. Many of these children must know that this is not going to end well but feel sufficiently psychologically motivated to pursue the matter.

Perhaps the acknowledgement of the biological link with a bad or indifferent father is better than a complete absence of half of yourself.

Both my dc are high achieving.

I am a lone parent, their father is abusive and only parents when and how it suits him, not for the dc's benefit.

Can you explain, OP?

Elephant society is generally matriarchal and males are often solitary.

Areas where elephants were protected and had older, dominant males rarely suffered from these sort of youth vandalism.

I'd heard the same but it was older female elephants. Weird. In the case of places they were restocking younger elephants after poaching.

I've just finished reading the article and I don't see what is controversial about anything that is said.

The vast majority of humans are heterosexual and therefore the vast majority of pair bondings will be heterosexual and therefore the family structures that arise will mostly comprise of mothers and fathers. Human society and culture has evolved and been shaped by these facts and therefore it's not surprising that fathers and father figures have a big impact on children and young people, as well as an impact on the fathers themselves.

I think it's important that children have good father figures from as early an age as possible. The links with male aggression and female promiscuity are really important.

There is a significant lack of good father figures and male role models for boys and young men to look up to. Ideally this should be the biological father.

If that's not possible, then a close male relative should play a role. However, in these modern times, people move a lot and rarely live and die in one town or village like they used to. Family members and extended relatives are far flung due to globalisation and folk rarely know who their neighbours are. There's no solid community so males aren't going to find stable father figures in many areas.

Nurseries and schools are overwhelmingly staffed by women. This further contributes to the lack of male role models and father figures. I generally get pushback for saying it's not good for any field to be too dominated by one sex because it can have unintended or negative consequences and therefore it's really important to encourage more men into teaching roles in schools as I think boys need more positive male influence from an early age, especially if they don't have access to this in their homes and/or local community.

On a tangent, I remember years ago reading about how certain areas were having lots of problems with rampaging young male elephants damaging crops, trees and infrastructure. Like many animal species, younger males are full of testosterone and prone to being aggressive and confrontational.
Areas where elephants were protected and had older, dominant males rarely suffered from these sort of youth vandalism. The presence of the 'father figure' in the territory kept the younger males in check and lowered their aggressive behaviour towards other elephants and people.
With poaching, the older males were being killed because they had bigger tusks, and this had the unintended consequence that the lack of a dominant male meant the juveniles were running riot leading to more problems in the territory between elephants and humans.

People seem to insist humans operate on some level that is independent and outwith the rest of the animal kingdom. Yes we are a very unique and complex species, and not every aspect of other animals applies perfectly to our own dynamics. However, I think we have a lot to learn about ourselves as a species and I wish we had more humility about our capabilities based on millennia of evolution. We are not completely rational and 100% in control of our thoughts and behaviour as we'd like to think. We absorb so much social conditioning as well as being products of our biological and evolutionary heritage.