(no subject)

I'm a regular reader of Violent Acres' blog, and I generally think she's got good points, even if she's a little aggressive about presenting them.

Recently, though, she wrote about the need for Fathers, and I have to disagree. The thing is, I agree with nearly everything that VA says. The key word there is "nearly"-- she takes a lot of good points, and then jumps to a conclusion that is oh-so-close yet oh-so-wrong. She posits that kids need fathers in their lives to teach them to toughen up, to keep secrets, and help them find their own way. She also maintains that it's not possible for a mother to teach those things while simultaneously teaching the child that (s)he's loved, how to make friends. In a nutshell, VA states that kids need someone to teach them the touchy-feely stuff, and someone else to teach them how to hold their own against a cruel world.

And although I disagree with the gender stereotyping (I know some men who are much better at the touchy-feely stuff than their wives), I fully agree with the basic concept. I'll take it one step further, even-- kids need someone to spoil them, someone to discipline them, someone to make them giggle, someone to share secrets with, someone to protect them, someone to teach them how to protect themselves, someone to hide behind, someone to help them rebel, someone to make sure their rebellion stays within safe limits, someone to buy them small gifts for no reason, and someone to make them save their birthday money instead of blowing it all on toys and candy. And it's impossible for all those someones to be the same person.

But VA takes that to mean that a child can't grow up into a normal, balanced child without a father. And that's where I disagree. It's a particularly hot issue for me, because I had no contact with my father for over 30 years. While I won't try to claim I'm "normal", I manage to get through life reasonably well.

It's also a common argument; James Dobson uses the same idea to condemn Mary Cheney and Heather Poe for having a baby. What VA and Dobson both miss is one small-but-key distinction:

Children need a father figure. They do not necessarily need a father.

Don't get me wrong, a father makes a wonderful father figure. But if he can't or won't, the child is not doomed to roam the earth with no discipline or source of strength. In my own case, I learned to dance by standing on my Father Figure's feet, and attended every single Daddy-Daughter dance at my elementary school with him. He yelled at me when I was out of line, threatened to spank me when I ignored the yelling, and followed through when I ignored the threats. He taught me to ride a bike, played catch with me, and caught me when I jumped into the pool. My mother and grandmother taught me not to talk to strangers; he taught me how to balance that with being social, and how to talk to strangers without putting myself in danger. He let me try his beer, and laughed at me when I spit it out and made a face. And I get angry and defensive whenever someone tries to tell me that I grew up without a father just because I called him "Grandpa" instead of "Dad".

VA's point is not to condemn step-fathers or other non-father father figures, which is why I don't hold her in the same low regard that I hold Dobson or the dozens of people over the years who clucked their tongues at me and ignored my grandfather's contribution to my life. Still, she takes a wrong turn in an otherwise good point (I agree that too many mothers strip away their child's respect for their father, and that doing so is detrimental both to the father and to the child, which is the main thrust of her argument), and spends too much time focusing on the role of the Father when in actuality what kids need is a Family. Neither parent should be the someone that spoils-- leave that to a grandmother, aunt, uncle, close family friend, whatever. Neither parent CAN be the one to encourage-yet-control rebellion, because the parents are the ones the kid is rebelling against. Leave a kid with two gender-balanced parents but no other family (or adults close enough to be considered family), and you'll end up with a kid far more screwed-up than a kid with one parent missing but a loving extended family.

(no subject)

I'm a regular reader of Violent Acres' blog, and I generally think she's got good points, even if she's a little aggressive about presenting them.

Recently, though, she wrote about the need for Fathers, and I have to disagree. The thing is, I agree with nearly everything that VA says. The key word there is "nearly"-- she takes a lot of good points, and then jumps to a conclusion that is oh-so-close yet oh-so-wrong. She posits that kids need fathers in their lives to teach them to toughen up, to keep secrets, and help them find their own way. She also maintains that it's not possible for a mother to teach those things while simultaneously teaching the child that (s)he's loved, how to make friends. In a nutshell, VA states that kids need someone to teach them the touchy-feely stuff, and someone else to teach them how to hold their own against a cruel world.

And although I disagree with the gender stereotyping (I know some men who are much better at the touchy-feely stuff than their wives), I fully agree with the basic concept. I'll take it one step further, even-- kids need someone to spoil them, someone to discipline them, someone to make them giggle, someone to share secrets with, someone to protect them, someone to teach them how to protect themselves, someone to hide behind, someone to help them rebel, someone to make sure their rebellion stays within safe limits, someone to buy them small gifts for no reason, and someone to make them save their birthday money instead of blowing it all on toys and candy. And it's impossible for all those someones to be the same person.

But VA takes that to mean that a child can't grow up into a normal, balanced child without a father. And that's where I disagree. It's a particularly hot issue for me, because I had no contact with my father for over 30 years. While I won't try to claim I'm "normal", I manage to get through life reasonably well.

It's also a common argument; James Dobson uses the same idea to condemn Mary Cheney and Heather Poe for having a baby. What VA and Dobson both miss is one small-but-key distinction:

Children need a father figure. They do not necessarily need a father.

Don't get me wrong, a father makes a wonderful father figure. But if he can't or won't, the child is not doomed to roam the earth with no discipline or source of strength. In my own case, I learned to dance by standing on my Father Figure's feet, and attended every single Daddy-Daughter dance at my elementary school with him. He yelled at me when I was out of line, threatened to spank me when I ignored the yelling, and followed through when I ignored the threats. He taught me to ride a bike, played catch with me, and caught me when I jumped into the pool. My mother and grandmother taught me not to talk to strangers; he taught me how to balance that with being social, and how to talk to strangers without putting myself in danger. He let me try his beer, and laughed at me when I spit it out and made a face. And I get angry and defensive whenever someone tries to tell me that I grew up without a father just because I called him "Grandpa" instead of "Dad".

VA's point is not to condemn step-fathers or other non-father father figures, which is why I don't hold her in the same low regard that I hold Dobson or the dozens of people over the years who clucked their tongues at me and ignored my grandfather's contribution to my life. Still, she takes a wrong turn in an otherwise good point (I agree that too many mothers strip away their child's respect for their father, and that doing so is detrimental both to the father and to the child, which is the main thrust of her argument), and spends too much time focusing on the role of the Father when in actuality what kids need is a Family. Neither parent should be the someone that spoils-- leave that to a grandmother, aunt, uncle, close family friend, whatever. Neither parent CAN be the one to encourage-yet-control rebellion, because the parents are the ones the kid is rebelling against. Leave a kid with two gender-balanced parents but no other family (or adults close enough to be considered family), and you'll end up with a kid far more screwed-up than a kid with one parent missing but a loving extended family.