|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it surprising that the APA even let this get published in a proprietary journal. Usually they are so anti-male that this stuff gets stifled.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An hour on MEDLINE and I found that fathers can help protect their daughters from maltreatment, get their children to brush their teeth, protect the mothers of their children from contracting HIV, keep their children nourished during famines in war zones, keep their sons out of jail, and get their daughters to play sport.
Things aren't so bad in all the journals.
sd
"Expectant mothers who were raised by a single parent were more likely to have a history of childhood maltreatment, less likely to live with the father of the baby during their pregnancy and to expect less support from him.
"Poor adolescent expectant mothers: can we assess their potential for child abuse?
Poor adolescent expectant mothers: can we assess their potential for child abuse?
J Adolesc Health 2001 Oct;29(4):271-8
"Moreover, using logistic regression analysis, they found that variables such as gender, father's education, exercise, and dietary habits, were significantly correlated with the how frequently the students brushed their teeth. "
Oral hygiene and lifestyle correlates among new undergraduate university students in Lebanon.
J Am Coll Health 2001 Jul;50(1):15-20
"Children from non-infected families were more likely to have fathers who are alive and who are living in the home. In addition, regardless of whether or not the father lived in the home, these children had more frequent father contact than children from families with maternal HIV infection."
Father-child contact in inner-city African American families with maternal HIV infection.
AIDS Care 2001 Aug;13(4):475-80
"Child mortality is highest among children born to illiterate mothers and illiterate fathers. Our results also show that the role of parental education in reducing child mortality is great during famine periods. In the communities devastated by war, however, its impact was significant only when the father has above primary education."
War, famine and excess child mortality in Africa: the role of parental education.
Int J Epidemiol 2001 Jun;30(3):447-55; discussion 456
"Fathers engaged in a community activity had sons with significantly lower rates of persistent criminality. This result was most marked for youth with low school achievement, and multiple problem profiles of social and academic disadvantage."
Parent participation in community activities and the persistence of criminality.
Dev Psychopathol 2001 Winter;13(1):125-41
"Physical and sports activities of girls were linked with maximal oxygen uptake, sport involvement of father, support, and encouragements of practice, perception of own activity, and private environment."
Physical activity and sport involvement in French high school students.
Percept Mot Skills 2001 Feb;92(1):107-20
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting and not surprising. The problem is that this perspective is grossly lacking in considering family policy in most high-income countries around the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 05, @09:54PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that the benefits of loving fathers should persuade the public to stop allowing our "one size fits all" paternity laws to force men into parenthood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm seems we have a problem here. On one side we have men relishing the recognition that father involvment is important, indeed crucial to the development and welfare of children. And on the other we have the notion that fatherhood is or should be "optional".
Which is it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Which is it?
Choice for men and noting the importance of fatherhood in child development are not mutually exclusive. I, for one, believe that children are much, much better off having involved fathers. That does not mean, however, that I want to deprive another man of his right to not be forced into fatherhood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With abortion being legal, women have the option of choosing to be mothers at one time and choosing not to be mothers at another. So, in response to your question:
Which is it?
I say that if motherhood can be optional, then so should fatherhood.
That being said, I do believe that this is a complicated issue and the glib answer I gave to the glib question Lorianne posed is insufficient. But if we need to boil it down to these simple answers, then I believe a man should have the same rights as the mother to decide whether or not to become a parent.
Personally, I believe abortion to be wrong and I believe that no man should ever walk away from his child. Parenthood is only partially a "choice." Usually it is an inevitable outcome of a relationship that includes heterosexual sex, and hence it is NOT a choice, but an inevitable responsibility. Birth control, abortion, and sexual politics present the complications, and these are all relatively recent inventions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank, I don't believe in abortin either.
Many women don't have the "choice" as is commonly assumed, to have an abortion. To someone who doesn't believe in abortion ethically, morally, on religious grounds, the government bestowing a legal "choice" doesn't mean anything at all.
They could pass a law tomorrow which gives mothers a legal choice to kill their born children, that doesn't mean I personaly accept that "choice" as valid. Could the father then say, "I don't want to parent our kid because you have a "choice" not to be a parent anytime you wish?" How about if he says, "You decided not to kill our child so don't expect me to be a parent if I don't want to." To someone who doesn't believe in abortion, this is the same thing.
Anyway, I'm glad scientific research is proving common sense that fathers are important and vital to kids. Hopefully this will convince more men to be fathers rather than the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't followed the arguments in detail but I think that most c4m advocates only favor a relatively short window in which a father could renounce his parenthood. If it were early enough that the woman still had the option of an abortion you could argue she wasn't placed in an overly invidious position.
Feminists seem to be in something of a quandary. On the one hand they berate men for not being sufficiently involved and demand that they pay and pay. On the other hand they trumpet that fathers are unnecessary, toxic even, that fatherhood is just an oppressive patriarchal construct and that in the golden days of the goddess there was no such thing and noone knew their father.
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But you arguement fails to address the issue. In our current legal system women DO have the right to "kill" their unborn child, even against the objections of the natural father.
Quite simply, all that is being asked is that men be given the same opportunity as a woman has. This means the totally unilateral decision (optional as it is) of NOT being a parent.
The other option would be to require that the natural father having to sign a release form waiving his rights before an abortion could be performed. After birth, the father would assume custody of the child and the mother could be sued for support. There would have to checks and safeguards to make sure the mother takes care of the fetus until term of course.
Also, those who have religious views against abortion usually view premarital sex as a sin as well. I dont' have any figures, but I would guess that most abortions are by women who are not married, or in an extramarital affair. Funny how they get to pick when they find religion.
Personally, I think abortion is wrong, and I think the "choice" was made when the consenting parties had sex. Both parties should be responsible for that child.
Of course then there are adults who have no business what so ever being parents. But that is another arguement. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
......."Also, those who have religious views against abortion usually view premarital sex as a sin as well. I dont' have any figures, but I would guess that most abortions are by women who are not married, or in an extramarital affair. Funny how they get to pick when they find religion."
It is not just religious people who have a problem with abortion. To equate ethics only with religion is a fallacy.
Many women who think in the abstract that they could abort, find out when faced with the actual decision they cannot on moral/ethical grounds that have nothing whatsoever to do with religion. I do not think it's fair to berate them as having "found religion" at the last moment.
Abortion in the abstract is quite a different thing than actually climbing up on the abortionist's table in person. Are we now to mock people when they give such a serious decision more than a glib thought?
Abortion referrals are about twice the number of actual abortions performed. This means a lot of people have second and third thoughts about the decision. I seriously doubt all or even most of these declines are made on the basis of "let's screw the father out of CS". I prefer a less cynical view, that many people when faced with such a grave decision, including the father, decide against it, and opt instead for life. This, at least to me, is a life affirming, unselfish decison, not cynical/"lets screw the other guy" in the least.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is not just religious people who have a problem with abortion. To equate ethics only with religion is a fallacy.
It is just as fallacious to suggest that because one supports C4M that one is against involved fatherhood, per your original question.
In response to another post, SD is correct, I think, when he says that many C4M advocates believe that there should only be a certain space of time in which a man can renounce fatherhood.
Just as a woman cannot legally kill her child/abort after a certain time period, so should a man not be given extra liberty to abandon his responsibilities if he has renounced his parental rights prior to that time. It would be unreasonable, I think, to demand any greater parental choice for men than what is currently afforded women. Otherwise, we're just exchanging one inequality for another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not berating or assuming that someone found religion. Or am I suggesting that women use birth or abortion as a tool to "screw" men. But that is not the heart of the issue.
What I think is missing, and that you not have addressed, is the birth or abortion of a child is solely in control by the mother. This mother can make the legal decision for the father as to whether he will or not be a parent.
To make things fair, I simply think that the father should be afforded the same legal standing. If the father wished to have the child, and the mother doesn't then some legal mechanism should protect that right. If the mother wants the child, but the father doesn't, the father should be protected as well. As I mentioned, these rights already exist for the mother, so why not the father?
Again, to hedge my personal opinion, the choice was really made by both parties in the bedroom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is not contradictory for the men's movement to push for C4M and a more positive image of fatherhood. It all boils down to individual choice, which is what the men's movement is all about (by my definition, anyway). Men who don't want to be fathers should be able to opt out of it, and men who do want to be fathers should not have to deal with stigmas.
Further, the evidence that many pregnant women renounce their freedom to abort doesn't change the fact that the freedom is still there. And since I only believe in holding people up to a single standard - a single law - than any rights that a father is entitled to in the eyes of the law should be in accordance with the rights that a mother has in the eyes of that same law. Whether or not the mother chooses to renounce her rights should not affect the father's choice to retain or renounce his. That would mean that, while a man might have certain rights under general law, a woman would have the power to invalidate those rights based on "personal choice". I don't think women should have that kind of power over men - do you?
Also, too - feminists will never be satisfied if they require all women to take advantage of the rights they have. Trying to persuade people to disregard the existence of a "right" simply because not all women take advantage of it kind of reaks of trying to persuade people that women basically still have no rights in this world (a common tactic of extreme gender feminists, by the way). All society can do is give women the rights; you can't require that all women then be seen as using all of those rights or else "the war is still on!"
Getting back to the topic at hand - I do believe that fathers should take responsibility for their children, regardless of what the law tells them to do. This is simply common decency, and like you, Lorianne, I hope that research proving the importance of father involvement will incite more men to stick around; I think part of the reason it is so easy for (some) men to either walk away, or simply not get properly involved, is the idea that their presence doesn't matter anyway. So from a moral standpoint, I say that there's no excuse for paternal detachment. But, from a legal standpoint, I don't believe that a father should be held responsible for the life of a child if he did not have any legal say over whether that child was allowed to live.
On the other hand, since the father is half-responsible for the conception of the child, I could see passing a law which requires fathers to cover half the cost of any inevitable medical expenses a woman will have simply by being pregnant, as well as half the cost of the abortion, if she chooses to have one. Perhaps such a law would be a good compromise, if men were ever freed of child support obligations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I am not berating or assuming that someone found religion. Or am I suggesting that women use birth or abortion as a tool to "screw" men. But that is not the heart of the issue.
Sorry that's how I took your religion remark.
What I think is missing, and that you not have addressed, is the birth or abortion of a child is solely in control by the mother. This mother can make the legal decision for the father as to whether he will or not be a parent.
A woman who cannot ethically do something whether it is legal or not is not "in control" in the sense you suggest. A person who could never set fire to his neighbors house hasn't really made a "decicion" whether or not to.
"To make things fair, I simply think that the father should be afforded the same legal standing. If the father wished to have the child, and the mother doesn't then some legal mechanism should protect that right."
I agree with this and I believe men should have some legal rights in the domain of prevention of an abortion. The thorny part is the child's rights to have both parents.
" If the mother wants the child, but the father doesn't, the father should be protected as well. As I mentioned, these rights already exist for the mother, so why not the father?"
I agree in principal but not in practice. Again, but the thorny part is the child's rights here. Also, in this scenerio there is the quandry of coercion to abortion if the father refuses to particpate.
"Again, to hedge my personal opinion, the choice was really made by both parties in the bedroom."
I agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne, re post #8, I heartily agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, so I'm a little late on replying, but I just joined two days ago.
I don't think that the notion is that fatherhood, in and of itself, should be optional, but that it should be AS optional as motherhood, and that the option for fatherhood should be the father's option, not the mothers.
I don't believe in abortion, either, but that's not the only choice. A good friend of mine just gave her child up for adoption. She couldn't raise the child on her own and she didn't want the father involved (and neither did he), so the child was adopted. Good choice, in my opinion.
But as it stands, a woman can lie about birth control, become pregnant, never tell the father, and sue him for retroactive child support 18 years later. Men have no such advantage. We currently simply have to wait and see what the woman involved decides our level of responsibility is going to be, and then live with her decision.
Personally, I think that there is another option that could be pushed. We could simply develop a Single Parent Act and Single Parent Fund, which would provide for children raised by single parents of EITHER gender, releasing the other (presumably non-parent-oriented) from financial responsibility. If it was worded to specifically include both genders in both situations, it could work. Of course, the likelihood of getting anything like that even proposed as a bill or law is damned near ludicrous, but it's a thought.
In an ideal world, no adult would be faced with the position of ever having to decide to parent or not to parent, and every adult would be willing to take responsibility for their actions when possible.
This ain't an ideal world...yet.
Credendo Vides
(By believing, one sees)
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
