The Biology of Fatherhood

[IdaBWells]

Fatherhood is a relatively new field of study, but so far studies of biological fathers living with their biological children have shown to lessen aggression in both sons and daughters. Having her biological father in the home also seems to postpone a daughter becoming sexually active and decrease a daughter’s likelihood in engaging in risky sexual behaviour.

Here is an interesting article www.fatherly.com/health-science/science-benefits-of-fatherhood-dads-father-effect/

I think it’s important to look at the biology of fatherhood so we can acknowledge the biological differences in both men and women and how their unique physical presence can have a protective and positive effective on children’s outcomes.

Ok I understand. I just do genuinely find this interesting. Also if we say there's a lot of bad fathering going on or fathers are absent, then surely we need to study and show how and if fathers are important. Then what they do or don't do that helps their children have good outcomes; Because if we are asking young men to step up and they have not had good fathering themselves we need to be able to give them concentrate steps with evidence of what works and why it works. Male biology has a impact from the start as the quality of sperm affects the health of the child. Outcomes for children is linked to outcomes for women. I asked earlier this week for recommendations of feminists who talk about biology and got zero responses. There must be feminists in human biological sciences?

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

actullay not sure what discussions you are referring to when you talk about the importance of women’sbiologyto motherhood ...beyond the pure biology of conception birth and feeding

Me neither. Surely these outcomes are socio-economic and cultural?

Throwing in a huge generalisation but setting aside poor Liam Fee's monstrous Lesbian parents I would assume that a lesbian couple who have made a very deliberate choice to be parents are probably likely to maintain stable relationships.

It's the idea that biology is irrelevant that gives us gender theory

Other than the pregnancy, birth and breastfeeding I think it is completely irrelevant to being a good parent.

Because if we are asking young men to step up and they have not had good fathering themselves we need to be able to give them concentrate steps with evidence of what works and why it works

Boys need good male role models - that can be anyone from Grandad to Uncle to a teacher at school. It doesn't need to be their Dad.

I do't know about the idea that biological relation is irelevent. Lots of regular posters talk about surrogacy as being a problem in terms of the rights of the child, and that is in terms of biology, the mother who carried the child, or the mother who donated her egg.

That's a pretty intimately biological link and clearly many think it is important. From that perspective I can't see the father as being less important than an egg donor.

I don't know that I'd think of it as a direct feminist issue though clearly the role of fathers crosses over in all kinds of ways, in terms of talking about what is good for children, what is good for partners, and so on. I do however think its a timely issue, far more children today grow up without fathers around.

Other than the pregnancy, birth and breastfeeding I think it is completely irrelevant to being a good parent.

That is a pretty powerful bond that's formed.

Some responses in this thread feel quite knee-jerk, as if men aren't accepted as having any place of importance in their children's lives.

There are so many variables in a childhood that lasts 18 years after nine months of pregnancy.

Of course having a lovely father present is an advantage, as is having a good diet, growing up in a family with clear and reasonable boundaries, a loving extended family living nearby, going to a good school, having educated parents and parents that weren't themselves traumatised as children, etc. etc. etc.

I'm all for good fathers. Unfortunately this kind of news item results in women thinking that they have to put up with appalling husbands for the sake of the children and that is where the trouble starts.

I'm another not very impressed by the cited article. I also think you're overinterpreting it - there's really not very much about biology as opposed to the much more obvious social effects. For example the paper on risky sexual behaviour shows the adverse effect of family breakup, and nothing about the presence of a biological father.

To repeat what others said - there's no evidence that a pair of women can't coparent just as effectively (or more effectively) as a mixed sex couple.

Spartacus obviously men are responsible for themselves, I am just interested in looking at this, as I have known plenty of rubbish dads so it would be good to know what a good dad does. I also agree with Goosefeet that I’m discouraged by the dismissal of the biological role and importance of fathers, as there is no way we would ever dismiss a biological mother’s importance in her child’s life in the same way. I also think it’s dangerous to dismiss the importance of biology as it encourages the growth of surrogacy, lessens children’s rights to know their biological parents and also promotes the concept of treating children as a commodity. So many people struggle with not knowing one or more of their biological parents that I know personally. These are people who were adopted, who were the result of sperm donation or who were abandoned by one or other of their parents (I am in the US and sperm donors can stay anonymous here).

www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/what-life-is-like-with-two-mums/7921674

I know a teenage boy who also feels this way. He says it’s very difficult to talk about because it’s always seen as criticism of his mother and her partner.

I am not trying to dismiss biology, I just don’t get what physical biological methods are beingbinvoked her that apply to the biological dad and not a stable male adult. Given what we also know about women sometimes choosing to use one person as the stud and another as the stable father figure.and getting away with it.

THe problems I have with surrogacy are first that the baby has known in someone way the mother for 9 months. New born babies recognise the voice and heartbeat. Removing a child etherefore will disrupt the child life. But more, the idea that a child can be bought. SLaves were bought.

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.

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.

Elephant society is generally matriarchal and males are often solitary.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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. :)