Posted on 06/15/2022 6:50:55 AM PDT by Heartlander
Even in a world that assumes human advancement is somehow our achievement, and thus is also ours to freely tweak, the increasing social demotion of fatherhood is harvesting some glaring problems. University of British Columbia professor Edward Kruk has studied in depth the fallout that occurs when children grow up without a father active in their lives.
In an article in Psychology Today, Kruk presents a sobering litany of physical, psychological, behavioral and relational damages that are statistically inarguable for these fatherless children. A brief sampling of his findings includes:
I believe Kruk is to be commended for his very real concern for fathers and for their children. The focus of his article, however, is limited to the role various legal structures play in these maladaptive patterns. He writes:
Whereas parents, in general, are not supported as parents by our social institutions, divorced fathers, in particular, are often devalued, disparaged, and forcefully disengaged from their children’s lives....
More often than not, [divorced or non-marital] fathers are involuntarily relegated by family courts to the role of “accessory parents” instead of active caregivers.
His prescription is consistent with his diagnosis:
What is the solution to father absence? Many fathers’ advocates have stressed the need for fast, low-cost, effective ways for non-residential parents to have their court-ordered parenting time enforced. While access enforcement is important, legislating for shared parenting would be a more effective measure to ensure the ongoing active involvement of both parents in children’s lives. A legal presumption of shared parenting would affirm the primary role of both parents, and make clear that even in the absence of a spousal relationship, both mothers’ and fathers’ parental responsibilities to their children’s needs are “sacred,” and therefore deserving of full legal protection and recognition.
When Fatherhood Loses its Grounding
One has to wonder what Kruk’s thoughts were behind the word he put in air quotes – “sacred.” Is it for him simply a symbol of the mysterious dynamics that are somehow imbedded in the family structure, or does he have a sense that the problems actually arise out of society’s disregard for an authority that transcends cultural and legal mechanisms?
When operating within the scope of human governmental authority, his effort to adjust the laws to accommodate the realities of fatherhood seems wise. I would suggest, however, that this course of action also has limitations.
At one level, it appears to do little to address the “one size fits all” approach to problem resolution. The concept of “shared parenting” is wonderful...if both parents are truly interested in and capable of caring parenthood. While this is out of my range of expertise, it seems likely that the existing restrictions were developed at least in part to protect children from over-exposure to a parent that is toxic—and yes, in some cases that could well be the mother. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, the very sexist notion that men are always the bad ones is deeply flawed.
But in the broader sense, to the extent the government incrementally displaces God, even with the best of intentions, it usually results in increased governmental micromanagement. When the legal system takes on the role of family oversight, what it is essentially doing is removing from fathers the specific responsibilities God has entrusted to them.
From this perspective, what might actually be accomplished through Kruk’s proposed solution would simply be a small improvement that doesn’t sufficiently address the ongoing evisceration of fatherhood. Men are actually best equipped for healthy fathering through the strengthening of their inborn masculinity, characterized by their call to protect and provide for those under their authority, and accompanied by a social system that accords them honor when they accomplish these things.
Today we are witnessing what C.S. Lewis would likely include under this description in The Abolition of Man:
In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.
This process of demasculinization is woven so subtly and pervasively into our modern culture that it sometimes becomes hard to detect. For example, we have gone from “father knows best” to “children know best.” We have made heroes out of violent and vile men. Any hint that a man can (or should) do something a woman can’t do is pretty much verboten. Moreover, there is an inherent flaw in any public policy that gives men responsibilities without authority, potential constraints without a voice, or shaming without gratitude.
It is my hope, therefore, that those troubled by Kruk’s statistics would come to understand that the human fatherhood gap is ultimately an echo of the gap between us and our Father. Until we return to a vision of family as something truly sacred and not something to be meddled with, the grim and growing consequences will continue to be reaped, not only by fathers and mothers and children, but by civilization itself.
Thank LBJ and his Democrat monsters for this.
End Welfare = End Fatherlessness.
Any takers?
Wouldn't it be better if there were no fathers at all?
Too bad Walker didn’t discuss this in humility as he first began running for office, acknowledging his second son and that some relationships have been too emotionally scarred to have a father in the kids life but we must hope and pray and be humble and patient with God’s mercy and timing. Then he woukdn’t be a danged hypocrite.
Government fix?
The government caused it!
Now, at the age of 58, I finally feel like I might be catching up to my age. Hard ta tell, tho'.
I thought I knew somethin one time, but it turned out ta be BS.. d:^D
It’s elementary economics: If you subsidize something, you’ll get more of it. Government — the left and the impotent right — has been subsidizing bastardy for several generations now.
Here’s a possibility -
Men have always pursued women. Womens’ job was to step on the brakes until they see a child-raising partnership.
Women think they don’t have that responsibility any more because of birth control, careers, etc., and they find that they kinda like sex just for the fun of it and it really is fun.
Result, accidents happen and neither party wants that child-raising partnership with the baby daddy.
So you have mommies (unless they abort) and the daddy gets the blame for disappearing. But the mommy is equally to blame. It’ the nature of men to roam and the nature of women to feel close to their children and not roam.
But time marches on. Nature taking its course. Then there’s the influence of low-life entertainers. Well, we know their acting is low-life. They are emulating their own peers and trying to make a buck.
Government can’t fix it, but since government is actually the majority contributor to the problem, if they just reversed their foolish policies and got out of the way, the problem would probably fix itself. But even a majority of Republicans still favor the policies that led to this, so I don’t expect it to change.
There’s a pretty simple fix for all that: stop awarding child support and welfare to unwed mothers. Women would start closing their legs until they got a ring real fast, or they would at least be much more careful about birth control.
But instead, we’ll keep subsidizing having children out of wedlock, and like anything we subsidize, we will get more of it.
It Takes A Village
One problem is many women prefer having government being the provider. That way the women have absolute control over the kids and they like it that way. In a two parent family, there is more balance of power.
Well, we should at least get some parity then. If the government is going to be the husband to women, then the government should at least provide some “wives” to the men. Get all those sex workers off the streets and set them up with a Bureau in Washington DC, we got a new entitlement program to expand the government even more!
The mother of my sons demanded a divorce when my oldest was a junior in high school and my youngest was in the 7th grade. I did my best to stay close to them and relevant to their lives but I got put in a very difficult position.
Even though I had joint custody, my job required travel. It might have been a mistake, but since I traveled in my job, I thought it would be better that they have the stability of living with their mother and not have to swap back and forth between homes. It resulted in isolation for me and lack of influence. At best, I was on the outside looking in. Their mother would call me up every now and then wanting me to chew them out about something. In other words, she wanted me to play bad cop. It doesn’t work that way because they just wouldn’t come to my house if a reprimand was waiting.
The result: Neither accomplished up to their capability in the world of employment and responsibility. Neither attend church regularly. Neither has married. The oldest became a meth addict, but has been clean about 3 years now. The youngest dabbled some with drugs, but has been clean for years. The youngest has a far better employment record than the oldest, but he seems to be married to the restaurant business. He was capable of far more.
Now, my sons look to me as their stable, go-to parent. They figured out their mother’s games on their own and there is much resentment toward her. They maintain their relationship with her, as they should. Bottom line, life was not as it should have been for my sons, and the divorce/ separation from my family had decidedly detrimental effects on the quality of their lives . . . mine, too. I get a sick feeling every time I think about it.
“then the government should at least provide some “wives” to the men.”
Sleeping with a government bureaucrat. That sounds romantic.
When the fatherless children came of age in the 1980s, we had gang warfare and the crack epidemic.
I’ll go with it but yes we are in a minority.
Also end fatherlessness and GREATLY reduce crime. Every time there is a mass shooting we should en masse point out the murderer had no father in his life and our social policies have to change. Stop playing defense. Immediately call for an end to fatherless homes and the bogus modern psychiatric drugging we are doing.
“But instead, we’ll keep subsidizing ...”
Quite a bit of bad behavior. The term “tough love” is used. Too much love these days and not enough tough.
Not really love but politicians handing out money to pick up votes.
Mother Teresa was asked how wisdom is acquired. She said through suffering.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.