From: kapa@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (k.a.perkins)
Subject: Re: Impact of the absent father
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 04:22:51 GMT
Followup-To: misc.kids

In article <1992Aug27.023950.20779@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
> In article <1992Aug26.174339.1@fnalno.fnal.gov> holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
> >Actually, Aaron, the Brown reference indicated to me that he was talking about
> >getting single mothers well-paying jobs.
> > 
> >> You know it.  Mott's simply flouting the standard "Women good, men bad"
> >> rhetoric of modern-day - oh, I hate to say it - "feminism" - and writing
> >> dad out of the picture as some unneeded sperm donor.

> The point that I felt was implied in the article was that dads really
> aren't important when it comes to producing well-adjusted, intelligent
> children.  Mott seemed to imply that throwing money at the problem
> would be the solution.  This problem has been carefully analyzed and in
> numerous other studies the results were that children from
> single-parent homes tend to achieve less and tend to get in trouble
> more than children from two-parent homes.  I interpretted Mott's
> conclusions as stating that the problem is not single-parent homes, but
> lack of money in those homes, and low-levels of education for all those
> single-parent mothers.

Well, I interpreted your posting as saying that money and low educational
levels have no bearing on the problem.  I don't think anyone who has
ever been poor to the point of wondering how they were ever going to
pay the rent or buy food would agree.

> Why did I take exception to such thinking?  Well, because I think
> fathers are important - very important - for children of both sexes.  I
> think that children who have two good parents, even if they don't have
> a great deal of money, tend to be well-adjusted and are more aware of
> what it means to be a man or a woman.

Well, yes, children who have two GOOD parents do have a better deal than
children who only have one GOOD parent.  But just because kids have 2
parents doesn't mean that they have 2 good parents.  Some families are
better off without one of the parents around.  I know folks who have
thrown out spouses because they thought their spouses' drinking and
drug habits had gotten so out of control that the only way they and
the kids could be safe was to separate from that other person. I think
anyone can think of behavior that is so dangerous or unacceptable in
a family member that s/he would throw out a spouse that persisted in it.
Those kids have 2 parents, but only one good parent and that one parent
may become a better parent when she or he doesn't have to deal with an
alcoholic or a drug abuser on a daily basis.

> I think children of two-parent
> homes get the benefit of having parents who can relieve one another,
> who are not always rushing from place to place just trying to keep up
> with the children.

That can be true, provided one parent actually does relieve the other,
not just ignore their own responsibilities or create more work and
problems for the other.

> I think fathers are good at instructing children
> how to do many things and on average are much better at that
> instruction than are mothers.  Among those things are:  how to row a
> boat, how to throw a baseball, how to put a worm on a hook, how to play
> poker, how to climb trees, how to change a flat tire, how to wash the
> car, how to take failures with dignity, how to get up and go to work
> everyday - even when you don't feel like it, how to find the North Star
> by first finding Ursa Major, how to balance a checkbook, how to
> motivate others, how to make fun of yourself, how it is not unmanly to
> cry at movies, how to change a diaper the wrong way - so you get out of
> it later - basically, I think men are better at teaching children than
> women what it means to be a man.
Well, I can do or teach any number of those things as well or better
than my husband and many other men I know.  I hope those are just
examples and except for a few of them - like meeting your
responsibilities when you don't feel like it, handling failure,
and not taking yourself too seriously - not central
to your notion of what it is to be a man.  I don't think that the
essence of being a man is knowing how to change a tire or wash the
car, since that would mean that most men can be replaced by AAA or the
local gas station.  I always like how
men are saints for being involved at all with their children, and
women are horrible for not being 1000% involved with their children.
When we had our first child, my husband and I each took 6 month
consecutive parental leaves.  Many people, women and men alike, told
me how wonderful my husband was for taking 6 months off from work to
care for his child.  NO ONE told me how wonderful I was for taking 6
months off from my job to care for my child, or how wonderful I was
for being able to support my family for 6 months or for being willing
to do that.  I'm not saying he isn't wonderful or at least exceptional
for the care he takes of Madelaine, because he is.  But the expectations
on fathers' involvement with their kids is so low that they get credit
for being wonderful teachers when they can teach their kids how to do
something wrong and get more credit for it than the mothers who teach
their kids to do unpleasant boring chores (dishes, clean their room,
clean the bathroom, whatever) and do them right and without being nagged
to do them regularly.  On the scale of useful life skills for anyone,
it is more important to be able to cook, a traditionally female skill,
than it is to be able to climb a tree.

< stuff about the LA riots and how many of the rioters were products
of single parent homes >

I don't know about what would have fixed/prevented that.  I think the
problem is a lot more complicated than any one thing, be it single
parenthood, social programs or the police.

My husband grew up in a single parent home.  They were poor.
His dad died when he was 12, and he and his 5 siblings are a
very diverse bunch, with respect to education, the ability to accept
personal responsibility for their lives and the ability to make good
choices.  I think that if there had been fewer kids, it would have
been better, but his mom just wasn't up to the challenges of that many
kids.  More money would have helped that situation quite a bit, too.

> But we can only really fix the problems if we can accurately find the
> sources of those problems.  Anything else is spitting into the wind.

You got that part right.

Kate Perkins