Commentary on popular culture and society, from a (mostly) psychological perspective
Even on Father's Day, some think Dads are not just unimportant - they can even impede your drive to succeed.
Labels: fathers, PJM column
posted by Helen at 7:51 AM
Because "life is a series of disasters to be narrowly averted," Lisa Carver concludes that fatherless children have the best survivalist, crisis-oriented personalities required for success in life.The obvious conclusion is for all children to be fatherless, and even better, to have no parents at all. One must conclude that especially of mothers; all that mollycoddling ill serves preparation for a dog-eat-dog world.Why deny any child this obvious road to success?
I've found that everyone has had a crappy childhood.
Actually, mine was pretty damn good.Let that exception prove the rule.
That would certainly explain the Bush and Kennedy families. Wait...
@PJM: "Without dads to teach them about power, boundaries, and love, they resort to wielding power over others in an effort to control the father or punish the father that they never had."___________Well, this may set off some, and no offense is intended but I believe it is true, but fatherless children tend to restrain themselves less, and (and this is where I get in trouble) they tend to adopt or increase the use of the more typically female tactics. Whereas men more typically control and influence directly (and, when not properly guided, physically) women tend to influence through more indirect means--shame, proxy, manipulation, etc. The political is just one example of the proxy tactic--they leverage the power of the government on their own behalf. (Sort of like how many women use the family courts as proxy to coerce, control, and extort from men... even when it is women who destroyed the marriage.) This is also why fatherless girls tend to be more promiscuious than girls with fathers... they were not taught restraint to the level a father would, and they use their sexuality as manipulation. Before I get lynched, no where did I say women were worse than men. But society has been fighting strongly against stereotypical masculine problems will making excuses for female ones. Without mothers, children lack compassion and can become too violent and wreckless. Without fathers, children lack restraint and can become too emotional, manipulative, and disrespectful of others. We've tampered with the balance brought to the family by mothers and fathers... after all, here we are on fathers day with Obama for the second year in a row taking it as an opportunity to blast men, and we have an article making a case for fatherlessness as better. [SARCASM ON] I'm sure if someone did the same on mother's day, they would be unmolested by it. [SARCASM OFF]
On a more serious note, I agree somewhat with the lack of being taught boundaries thing. Dads teach boundaries. Not that moms don't, it's just that dads are more into the here and now physical aspect of life not the social maybe later. As such, you have to know when to stop the crap or eat the sandwich. Look at some of the politicians you wrote about. They don't seem to recognize when to stop. 2¢
TO: Dr. HelenRE: Heh"Does a Father-Free Home Breed Success or just Power-Hungry Politicians?" -- Dr. HelenAre there parallels of psychology between a "Power-Hungry Politician" and a gang-banger?Regards,Chuck(le)[Enquiring minds want to know.]P.S. Didn't Bill Clinton grow up in a 'fatherless' household? Are we seeing parallels there?
[Every people gets the governance they deserve.]P.P.S. And it strikes me as poetic justice that we inflicted this on ourselves.....
And it strikes me as poetic justice that we inflicted this on ourselves.....Who is this we, kimosabe?
@Oligonicella said... On a more serious note, I agree somewhat with the lack of being taught boundaries thing. Dads teach boundaries. Not that moms don't, it's just that dads are more into the here and now physical aspect of life not the social maybe later. ________________I think dads are more likely to teach boundaries directly, such as "you don't do this because _____" or "if you do this then _____ will happen." Mothers more typically, rather than teaching the natural consequences/punishments/rewards of certain behaviors, will either talk about how they feel about it or deter the behaviors through shame. I think that is a key difference. Both are important. Yet, while it is important to consider ones on feelings and the feelings of others, it is also important to know when to restrain yourself (especially when your feelings tell you to do something else). The old phrase "listen to your heart" gets a lot of people in trouble.
TO: Darth AggieRE: By 'We'...."Who is this we, kimosabe?" -- Darth Aggie...I mean every man and woman who watched this all coming about and said/did nothing to stop it.And NOW are doing not-quite-enough to turn it around.Getting a 'clue' here?Regards,Chuck(le)[Are we learning yet? -- young John Connor to the T800 in Terminator 2]
P.S. How do YOU propose we stop this 'insanity'?
Trust -- Yep. We agree.Apparently, I'm not amongst Chuck's we. I find that a good thing, by way.
TO: OligonicellaRE: Okay"Apparently, I'm not amongst Chuck's we. I find that a good thing, by way." -- OligonicellaWhat have you done to prevent this fiasco?What are you doing today to change it?Or is it that you think this is a 'good think'?Regards,Chuck(le)[The Truth will out....]
I think the importance of fathers is overrated and has been romanticized largely by the right. I also disagree with [largely] the left accepting the immateriality of fathers.I know too many well adjusted people who grew up without a father and too many fucked up people with one to accept this generality.The most narcissistic person I personally know had a father, but no mother (she had died when he was about 9 or 10.) Yet, his fraternal twin brother is his opposite.The most messed up people my best friend knows are one family of cousins, who were raised by two parents.My youngest daughter has a friend who's father has been in and out of jail. The girl misses her father, but it is very obvious that it's best when he's not around (the mom finally got divorced the last time the creep went to jail.)Yes, all anecdotes, but so are all the stories in these articles.
Joe wrote: "I think the importance of fathers is overrated and has been romanticized largely by the right."Ho do you respond to the research data on the differences between children from intact and single parent homes?Trey
Joe, The data shows that you are dead wrong!
Chuck -- As much as you.
Chalk up another happy childhood here. Had a blast as a kid and would do it all over again.
What does the data really show? Are the problems with single mother homes due to simply the absence of the father? What about the influence of genes? What is the effect of the relationship? What is the effect of being raised by a mother who is intent on getting something for nothing and confers no sense of responsibility?And once again READ. I get really tired of people who fail to understand words like "overrated". and for the record, mothers are overrated especially from conservatives who have an axe to grind about "family values."
I get tired of people who duck questions by asking more questions. Will you comment on the extensive literature concerning how children do in single parent households compared to traditional households?Trey
I read a recent article in the NYT about mothers as single parents. The research shows that most kids fare okay if they are raised by a single mother with financial resources. Things fall apart when a single mother struggles financially.
TO: OligonicellaRE: Really?As much as you. -- OligonicellaAnd what's that?You're a member of a fathers' rights group?You spread the Word on how men and women can live together in holy matrimony and not divorce?Funny........I think you're a liar here. Especially on the second item, as I don't recall seeing you post much on that it.But I could be mistaken......show me where you have.....please.....Regards,Chuck(le)[The field behind rhetoric is oft mined with equivocation.]
TO: TMinkRE: The 'Literature'Will you comment on the extensive literature concerning how children do in single parent households compared to traditional households? -- TMinkI think all the data I've seen shows a very strong correlation between single-parent households and a tendency of children from such being sociopaths. Certainly moreso than children raised in traditional householdsThis isn't to say that all children from traditional households are would-be 'models of good behavior'. Nor that all children from single-parent households are on the road to perdition. But intelligent people can read the proverbial writing on the wall and even between the lines, when they see crime stats about gang activities. Or read the papers about incidents and notice that there seems to be no 'fathers' mentioned in the majority of articles about young criminals.Regards,Chuck(le)[The Truth will out.....]
Chuck, I was referring to Joe specifically, but I appreciate your addressing the science.I have read the literature and come to the same conclusions. Most compelling for me is the high correlation between single mothers and poor children, then there is the one between single moms and incarcerated young men.In terms of poverty, the best predictors of poverty for children are a single mom, no father in the home, a young mom (under 25,) and a mom with multiple children from different men.The so called "racist" justice system in America does not look racist at all when you factor in fatherless young men. The racial disparity between blacks and white disappears when you factor in boys who grew up without a dad. That is because no dad in the home is the best predictor of a boy growing up to spend time in prison.The real crime is how most of these issues are choice related. Communities who suffer in poverty and high incarceration rates are doing this to their own children because of their choices. And this is kept as a dirty secret. When President Obama even flirted with talking about the issue, race pimp Jesse Jackson said he wanted to rip his nuts off. Jackson and Sharpton face the wrath of an angry God who does not take kindly to people who besmirch His name and prey upon the people that they claim to serve. Woe unto them.People can disagree with opinions all they want, but when there are facts about the matter, they must be addressed. Thanks for doing so Chuck. And to finish, Olig is OK, a fine guy if I read him right. You guys just got on the wrong side of a disagreement. Trey
TO: TMinkRE: Unfortunately....People can disagree with opinions all they want, but when there are facts about the matter, they must be addressed. -- TMink....The Truth of the matter is that for people who hold to a political agenda more than anythink else, there is no 'truth' except what they want to believe.As the adage goes....If facts do not conform to theory, they must be done away with.We see it ALL the time. Human-caused Global Warming is a prime example.Case in point..........the Martian ice caps are receding. There is an atmosphere developing on Pluto, which had not been there up to the 1990s. There are new major storms, i.e., spots, developing on Jupiter.We're supposed to be responsible for all of THOSE!!!?!The same applies to these other 'controversial' political opinions. Facts have NOTHING to do with the 'logic' of all too many people. They ARE the proverbial 'True Believers'.Regards,Chuck(le)[All of us who are concerned for peace and the triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field. -- Albert Einstein]P.S. As for Oligonicella........I don't hate this person. Indeed, it's against my firmly held beliefs to hate anyone. But I'm not keen on letting them get away with what I perceive to be so blatant a prevarication.
Chuck wrote: "The Truth of the matter is that for people who hold to a political agenda more than anythink else, there is no 'truth' except what they want to believe."We agree. That is a fact.Trey
Post a Comment