Interesting study on absense of fathers during childhood

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-05-23 06:53pm

I was just reading a study conducted in 2000 (Cabrera, Marsiglio-I'll find a link), that has correlated a lower occurence of psychological disorders in children that have a caring and involved father in the family. It also showed the children to be more socially competent.

Freud, after working with thousands of women with dissociative and conversion disorders, once said "I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father's protection."

I kind get the impression that any fathers around hare are going to kind of say "well duh," but I am curious as to what others here have to say about this. Keep in mind that these are not absolutes, just correlations.

Anyone have different opinions?

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2006-05-23 07:07pm

Let me run it to you this way

Everyone I know that came from a family without a father or at least a father figure are all losers/nuts/stupid

The ones with bad fathers were just losers/stupid, but rarely nuts (there were medical acceptions)

the ones with competent or good fathers are now productive, socialable, and likeable members of society

So, yeah

WELL DUH

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-05-23 07:09pm

I'm more concerned with what this means for lesbian couples who adopt children.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-05-23 07:10pm

Or what it means for bachelors and bachelorettes who adopt.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2006-05-23 07:13pm

Solauren wrote:
WELL DUH

Actually not so much duh since the feminazis and a bunch of other interest groups have been pushing this stupid agenda of "Single moms don't need men to raise their kids."

You know, I can understand you want these women to feel better about themselves, etc, but just outright lying like that and sending the message that men and fathers in general should be marginalized to make this segment of the female population feel better about themselves is fucking dishonest.

I have also run into the phenomenon of the kids without dads being generally jackasses. I always knew when I was dating a woman who didn't have a dad in their lives because they spent the rest of their lives looking for daddy in their boyfriends.

Its about fucking time that fathers get their fair shake in terms of their relative importance in a family.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-05-23 07:17pm

Stravo wrote:I always knew when I was dating a woman who didn't have a dad in their lives because they spent the rest of their lives looking for daddy in their boyfriends..

Are you ever right about that... Or they're so angry that they find men to beat up on for the rest of their lives. It's true; few things are more damaging to a woman than a father who abandoned them during childhood. It really should be a crime.

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2006-05-23 07:24pm

wolveraptor wrote:I'm more concerned with what this means for lesbian couples who adopt children.

Just because they are female it does not mean that one of them cannot play the role of father figure. Or, at least I'm fairly certain it doesn't.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-05-23 07:27pm

Adrian Laguna wrote:
wolveraptor wrote:I'm more concerned with what this means for lesbian couples who adopt children.
Just because they are female it does not mean that one of them cannot play the role of father figure. Or, at least I'm fairly certain it doesn't.

There's also evidence that having a two parent family, homosexual or heterosexual, seems to be the most important dynamic in a child's development.

Since these studies are still relatively young, I'd like to see more peer review, but I don't necessarily doubt it.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-05-23 09:01pm

As much as many groups might like to think single parenting is okay, everyone I know from a broken family has suffered for it. All the trashy sluts I fucked back in the day? Single mothers. I had a single mother call me to babysit her 16yo daughter while she went out, got drunk and tried to score!

I'm not a particularly normal person, but with my genetics that was never going to happen. My parents are some of the few that I know of who are still together, and the other people from full families are far less self-destructive than the majority who were raised by one parent (whether father or mother).

bilateralrope · Post by **bilateralrope** » 2006-05-23 09:09pm

wolveraptor wrote:I'm more concerned with what this means for lesbian couples who adopt children.

One of my friends was raised by a lesbian couple, one of which was his (yes, his) mother. He doesn't have any problems I've noticed. So I doubt there will be problems there

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-05-23 09:12pm

From my experiences, I would say that the lack of a big macho manz0r is less important than the failings of single parenting. Having two parents immediately gives options, depth, scope for disagreements, a prototypical relationship, negotiation, differing viewpoints, all that sort of thing that kids will learn by osmosis. Having a single parent means they're raised by an autocrat - usually, and incredibly corrupt autocrat. The lessons people learn in that situation are much different.

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2006-05-23 09:27pm

I think it has a lot more to do with the time being spent with the child and the general situations associated with single parenting than whether or not one has a penis.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-05-23 09:30pm

Again, a non-gender criteria that damns single parenting - no matter how loving and whatever you are, if you're a single parent you get stretched thinner, more stressed and spend less time with your kids than a couple who can share the demands. Take THAT, feminazis and proponents of 'traditional' families!

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2006-05-23 10:13pm

Stark wrote:Again, a non-gender criteria that damns single parenting - no matter how loving and whatever you are, if you're a single parent you get stretched thinner, more stressed and spend less time with your kids than a couple who can share the demands. Take THAT, feminazis and proponents of 'traditional' families!

Interesting question that popped into my head...
Has anyone done a study of the results on kids in situations with MORE than two close parental figures? I can see why that kind of setting would be rare, but it seems logical to me that kids with the support of three or four adults instead of just two might be better-adjusted on average than those from "normal families".

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-05-23 10:15pm

That's a fascinating suggestion - I would suggest, however, that this would fly into the face of our cultural idea of 'couples'. I have no experience with three-way, stable, caring relationships.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2006-05-23 10:17pm

I've known lesbian couples who have raised children but very much made a point of exposing them to positve male influences, such that the children wind up with "father figures" and presumptive uncles. Not quite the same as a true father, but a workable substitute. Historically, father figures and male mentors were consider very important for children of "broken" homes and widows. Done properly, it can moderate the problems arising from an absent father.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2006-05-23 10:18pm

Where does a child learn to behave in a relationship if not with the two parents? Like it or not children base the entire foundation of their being on what they learned from their parents. Was mom submissive and a doormat, chances are a daughter will consider that the 'normal' way to act in a relationship. A son will seek out a wife like that.

Was dad a kind hearted guy who treated his wife with respect and love? Daughter will seek a man like that, son will treat his wife the way his dad treated his.

A single parent robs one side of that equation forcing these kids to over compensate hence the slutty gals looking for daddy.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-05-23 10:18pm

It is always possible to work around or compensate for a problem, but it's still a problem. Does anyone still subscribe to the rabid 1970s feminist notion that males are unnecessary? It seems to me that it's primarily single moms and the children of single moms who insist that a father is redundant in the family, for obvious reasons.

When they say it, there's always an implicit threat of firestorm if you don't backtrack on your statements to the contrary; much like the way some smokers get pissy and say "are you saying that I am stupid?" when you say that smoking is stupid. The implicit threat is that they'll get really offended and then try to bring down the moderators on you for insulting a fellow member (not an effective tactic here of course, but it works in many other venues).

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2006-05-23 11:02pm

Stark wrote:That's a fascinating suggestion - I would suggest, however, that this would fly into the face of our cultural idea of 'couples'. I have no experience with three-way, stable, caring relationships.

I actually wasn't thinking of that, though observations would be fascinating; I considered, say, multiple families, possibly related - say, siblings and their spouses and children living together.

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2006-05-23 11:07pm

Has anyone done a study of the results on kids in situations with MORE than two close parental figures? I can see why that kind of setting would be rare, but it seems logical to me that kids with the support of three or four adults instead of just two might be better-adjusted on average than those from "normal families".

Stark wrote:That's a fascinating suggestion - I would suggest, however, that this would fly into the face of our cultural idea of 'couples'. I have no experience with three-way, stable, caring relationships.

Actually, kids with more than two supporting adults are, in a sense, experiencing the most normal families. We are talking hard-core traditional here, and it has absolutely no requirement for a three-way relationship. Haven't caught-up yet? I'm talking about the extended family. Back in the day, a child would grow-up with the support of a mother, a father, as well as aunts/uncles, and grandparents (if they were still around). Then on top of that, they would have a 'master' that would take care of them in their teens as they learned a trade. Even a nobleman's child would experience this, exept that since their trade is ruling, they would get a variety of learned men to teach them.

The hardcore traditional is a lot of adults all taking part in rasing a child, and it has been been the norm for thousands of years.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-05-23 11:11pm

I like the idea of living in a traditional multi-generational castle with siblings and parents for an extended family support system. Especially if there's a moat. Can we have a moat?

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2006-05-23 11:15pm

Darth Wong wrote:I like the idea of living in a traditional multi-generational castle with siblings and parents for an extended family support system. Especially if there's a moat. Can we have a moat?

Hey, I grew up with parents + siblings + 2 grandparents...I've gotta say it's pretty cool.

I just don't want to be the one who has to muck out the moat...

Oni Koneko Damien · Post by **Oni Koneko Damien** » 2006-05-23 11:45pm

Molyneux wrote:Interesting question that popped into my head...
Has anyone done a study of the results on kids in situations with MORE than two close parental figures? I can see why that kind of setting would be rare, but it seems logical to me that kids with the support of three or four adults instead of just two might be better-adjusted on average than those from "normal families".

My friend Devin lives with his mother, his biological father (her ex-husband), who does long-haul drives to support the family, and his other parental-father-type figure who also works to support the family. The third one has his own place and job, but spends about half the nights out of the year at Devin's house. I'm not a psychologist, but from what I've seen, Devin is by far one of the most stable people I know.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-05-24 12:02am

I think another advantage of multiple adults taking care of children is that the children become used to the presence of many different parental figures. When a kid's only interaction with adults is with his parents, he/she'll become afraid as soon as the parents experience some inconvenience and need to hire a nanny. It also makes the schooling experience more difficult. My sisters were taken care of by my parents more exclusively than me, and had difficulty adjusting to their daycare.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2006-05-24 12:08am

It's one thing if a woman is forced into being a single mother if the father dies or leaves her. But to say that such a situation is desirable for children is something else entirely.

As for the effect on lesbians wanting to adopt children, there's a difference between "father" and "father figure". If one of the partners takes on the "traditional" role of a father, then I don't see what the problem is.