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.

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?

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.

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.

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

Huh?! How did you infer that?

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.

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'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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I didn't say that. I said it was something that happens, I specifically pointed to a branch of my own family as an example though it's certainly wider than that.

I nowhere said that was something that all single mothers do, and I'm not sure how you would come to that conclusion. Do you usually think that if someone say "x is happening increasingly in society" it means "everyone does such and such"?

It seems like a fairly uncontroversial thing to say, that if a society takes a particular view, such as fathers being unnecessary, that more people will tend to make choices that reflect that.

On the one hand your saying that women shouldn't introduce men into their kids lives but on the other, you're berating them for being single.

From where I'm standing it looks very much like you're blaming women for men's fecklessness.

This whole thread is a bit like that tbh. Women have no agency over whether men are good fathers or not. Most of us pick men who we hope will be. But it seems to be luck rather than design a lot of the time.

All we can do is support women who have had the misfortune to procreate with a shit bloke. Not tell them they should have done better. Honestly, who is that going to help?

you're saying

Oh and I've come to that conclusion because I've quoted you in three separate posts. If you're not trying to draw some kind of universal conclusion, it seems fairly odd to keep banging on about it b

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.

I think you are expressing how you feel about your parents and men. I don't think you can generalise that other people feel the same way, particularly if you can't quantify why you feel that way.

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.

Agree, and I also think that parenting is about being there for your child all the time, regardless of whether you are brilliant at every single aspect of parenting. It's not about waving special fatherly magic on your kids. It's about clearing up sick and sorting out an argument for the 60 billionth time that day and remembering the ins and outs of their social lives. Neither men nor women are born with special abilities to do any of this.

It's not about waving special fatherly magic on your kids.

It's amazing how many people would disagree with the above.

I know it to be true, and I hope one day my dc know it to be true too.

I think you are expressing how you feel about your parents and men. I don't think you can generalise that other people feel the same way, particularly if you can't quantify why you feel that way.

OK, so let's take it out of the sphere of the personal. I said that there are aspects that I can't quantify because I believe that they are either unquantifiable or difficult to quantify: there are qualitative as well as quantifiable aspects to any aspect of human life.

The OP is talking about the unique aspects of mothers and fathers. Recent trends have attempted to impose a conformity of psycho-emotional functions on a biologically dualistic population. There have been ideological taboos placed on studying the unique qualities of fathers and mothers as there are now taboos being placed on studying the real trends in the transgender population.

There has been little emphasis on attempting to isolate the specifically positive masculine role of fathers in favour of attempting to promote conformity. We can't have it both ways - if we are biologically distinct, what does this really mean in psycho-emotional terms? It's shallow in the extreme to limit this merely to who takes their turn in changing nappies or picking up after the kids. And if we can't see any deeper than this then we are lost.

Are masculine and feminine differences merely limited to their respective roles in reproduction or are there other emotional and psychological differences? And if we want to deny that there are any differences beyond reproduction and we are wrong what will the consequences be?

I don't have the answers because nobody does and those people who believe they do are deluded.

On the one hand your saying that women shouldn't introduce men into their kids lives but on the other, you're berating them for being single

I haven't blamed anyone for being single. There are a lot of reasons people end up in that situation.

I do think it's a very bad idea to have men going in and out of the parents life, however, in a serial monogamy fashion. I wouldn't describe that as "blaming" anyone though. If I laid any blame it was on changing social expectations which isn't about individuals - I'd call that causation though, not blame.

Saying something is unwise, or will have a bad effect, is not the same as blaming people for doing it, there is a really important distinction there. It's not possible to talk about the effects of what society believes if every statement is taken as some kind of personal condemnation.

I do think it's a very bad idea to have men going in and out of the parents life, however, in a serial monogamy fashion

You sound so right until I look at this closer. Most women do not get together with a man thinking it will just be for a little while. Things go wrong and plans backfire.

And yes some parents are feckless, there always will be some like that, but the serial monogamy is probably the least of the children's worries in that case.

Are masculine and feminine differences merely limited to their respective roles in reproduction or are there other emotional and psychological differences?

I don't understand this. Nor do I get the OP's insistence that any of this is about biology.

There aren't masculine and feminine differences in reproduction, whether a woman is masculine or feminine she goes through pregnancy and birth, and the postnatal period, the same way.

If children are doing better with their biological father in their life, then it's that not just as likely to be because the father is more likely to be engaged with the children if the children are his? And if he is engaged and a positive role model/influence, then the relationship with the mother is also more likely to be stable and positive.

Stepfather boyfriends are more likely to see children as part of the "package" of being with the woman they are in a relationship with, rather than him actually choosing to be involved with children, so of course the relationship between the (step)father and children is not usually going to be as strong as a father in a positive relationship with the mother who made an active choice to have children. (I would say a heterosexual couple adopting is similar because again both parents make an active, positive choice, so the lack of biology wouldn't hinder this relationship)

Basically, I think the positive influences of fathers is a sociocultural thing, not necessarily a biology one. It just so happens that the most likely/common basis for a stable positive family is a biological family. But that stability can be found as much in other less common setups, eg lesbian couples, or single mothers (despite the odds being stacked against them by society).

I am the OP just coming back.

A) My intent in starting this thread was to think about and discuss biology.

B) At no time was talking about men being fathers meant as any disparagement of any kind to single mothers. I don’t believe I implied that because I never would.

C) We all know lots of wonderful parents doing a great job within various different family choices and structures. We all know plenty of “good enough” parents and we know lots of terrible parents. This thread was not meant to be about that. That to me is just a given. THEREFORE by looking at this subject I am not suggesting that fathers who abandon their children (and I know there are many) or generally don’t parent or show little interest should get any kind of kudos or that women should stay with abusive, lazy, neglectful men just because they are the bio dad.

D) Nature vs. Nurture: My interest (with unfortunately not the greatest example of an article) is in the BIOLOGY of fatherhood. I do believe that our environment and quality of parenting which we receive is of course most likely the biggest factor in parenting. HOWEVER I do think biology matters. Twin studies have shown that when separated at birth (not on purpose but through adoption when the twins were unaware they were not a singleton) there are very strong biological traits that come through, whatever the environment we are raised in. I think somewhere up thread someone mentioned breastfeeding. I actually BF my kids for years. Before I had kids I was massively ignorant of BF and I was amazed to learn how breast milk adjusts depending upon the age of baby and it’s needs. The milk your body produces for a premie will be made up of different compounds than for one 10 months old. Plus all the other wonderful stuff we know about BF and how it protects babies and moms. I do believe therefore that there will be something unique that men offer a child (not more superior or less superior) just different. This statement is in no way invalidates single mothers.

If you make a statement about a bio dad please think if you would make the same statement about a bio mom.

I believe studies have shown mothers and fathers (generally) play differently with their children. Men will do more physical play and more risky play. (I know there will be a chorus of women saying “I play with my child like that!”, but these are general observable trends).

Please understand that doesn’t mean I am suggesting that a father is essential or that what they may offer is BETTER. Until industrialization around the world communities were made up of families (in various forms) which were clustered into tribes, villages, cities, and most fathers were around (how much they were involved depends on culture).

This may be a tricky subject, my intention is not to offend anyone. I know a lot of eager young fathers. It would be interesting to tell them what they do and offer their child that is unique. My personal view is that it is unique - I myself didn’t have the greatest dad in the world - in fact he locked me out of the house at 16 but I am still really glad I knew him and all his family. Knowing him definitely helped me understand and know myself, despite all his faults.