Hermenuetics

Comments

I believe this post is overall supportive of men, it still feels like the same old "Mothers are saints on Mother's Day, but on Father's Day 'you men really need to step it up'" critique. And I just get tired of it.

I am a stay at home uncle, nannying my two nieces (15 months and 2.5) while stuggling to get 10 to 15 hours a week of contulting in. The girls need someone to watch them, I can do it and I love it. Yes it is hard work, yes I have many of the stay at home Mom feelings of not getting out of the house, feeling like my work is never done, not getting enough sleep, being sick of little people touching me, etc.

But I am not unusual in this world. There are a lot of stay at home dads. Fathers are more involved in the lives of their children than ever before (as this blog has reported). Why can't we just say, "thanks for all your hard work guys", especially around Father's day. I know there are lots of men not doing their job as fathers. The End of Men article very nicely shows some of the sociological factors in this. But can you have a couple weeks around fathers day and just have "thank you" and "good job" articles and leave the "get to work" articles for Sept or Jan when it is far away from Father's day

Posted By: Adam Shields | June 25, 2010 12:19 PM

I'm not sure what the author is trying to say or prove. She's provided no evidence that a male in the household is necessary to raise healthy children. She's quite capable of providing Bible quotes that mention fathers, but you can also find Bible quotes that mention sheep and boats and wine and lots of things.

Overall, this article seems to be vague and unfocused, mumbling something about fathers, but unable to provide a convincing case for anything.

Posted By: kathleen | June 25, 2010 1:26 PM

Kathleen, I don't know of any scripture that mentions boats, wine, sheep, or other objects in terms of how they should relate to their children.

It's helpful that she illuminates the shortcomings of research that purports to show that fathers are superfluous.

As for me, my father has been, and remains, a huge influence in my life. (He's 75; I'm 51.) I don't need "evidence" beyond that to know that I'm better off for having a relationship with him.

Posted By: Sheila | June 25, 2010 2:21 PM

I am aware of the "lesbians make better parents" study, but I think the world is drawing the wrong conclusion over its results. Even in same sex couplings, there will be one person who takes a "male"/leading role and the other will take the "female"/following role. So, children of same sex couples actually have one "father" and one "mother", except these two persons have the same gender biologically.

Posted By: Andrew | June 25, 2010 4:09 PM

@Adam- I agree with you. Men ARE stepping up to the plate and being involved in their children's lives; we all need to appreciate parents, no matter what gender, who are willing to be responsible, Godly parents. To those men who are, a big round of applause. Thank you!

One observation to make: in many cases, women complain about how their husbands' parent the children. ("He served the kids pizza for dinner! He let them jump on the trampoline when the safety net wasn't up! He let little Suzy jump off the high dive at the pool!" Etc.)

In these cases, I think the women are implying that their husbands aren't being good parents, ie, they aren't parenting exactly how the mother thinks they should. ("Mom's way is right; Dad's way is wrong or at least misguided," seems to be the unconscious idea.)

Yet many of these mothers fail to recognize that while dad's way of doing things may be different from mom's, they are not necessarily wrong, per se.

Not recognizing that there are many different, equally valid ways of caring for the kids can: make the woman disrespect the man; put the parents unnecessarily at odds with one another; and leave the kids with the impression that it's perfectly acceptable to treat your spouse (or anyone of the opposite gender) with disrespect.

Posted By: Laura K. Droege | June 25, 2010 4:52 PM

I don't think fathers should feel threatened by the lesbian studies. Two people intentionally working to raise children is usually a good thing if they are good people. I think lesbians may be very successful as since they cannot do this biologically, they need to be very intentional from the get-go, communicate a great deal. They probably also naturally share more household duties, being women. But this certainly does not mean that every family needs to be composed that way or that men cannot make very good parents. A man who is intentional, a good communicator, and supports women at the home and with household duties no matter her working status will make a good living situation for a child. Actually that study was also done and cited in recent feminist literature (one of the best things a man can do for a child is to be supportive of his wife, household tasks and emotionally). So Christians should really not feel threatened by this study. Men can and do many good things in the home, especially if they are supporting their wife.

Posted By: Alyson Davenport | June 25, 2010 5:07 PM

Those who are unfamiliar with scientific techniques, particularly the pseudo-science that passes for science these days in psychology and social "science," are easy fodder for such "studies."

On a purely objective basis there are waaaay too many variables at work to draw any real conclusions from these. Plus, they are often done by groups with a preconceived agenda. Addionally, they do not study the effects on generational evolution owing to non-traditional family constructs. We simply don't have long term follow-up.

Don't be taken in by this stuff!! Use your own common sense, hard science, and traditional Christian teachings to reach a conclusion.

Posted By: Truthmeister | June 25, 2010 5:57 PM

I almost had enough courses for a psychology major in undergraduate work, I do have a Master's degree and undergraduate degree in Biology so I know a great deal about studies, all kinds social science and others. Actually my masters is in communication disorders (what you would call a social science). I have read many studies in my graduate work which I would say are definetly not pseudo science. Being a social science, a study will be different from a "pure" or biological/physical science study but that does not make it less valid. I think I am not very likely to get "sucked in". Ahem. By your logic then, all the studies done in social science to treat autism, articualtion disorders, etc are "pseudo science" studies and not truly helping any people then. Um, I beg to differ alot with your sweeping generalizations as I have seen Applied Behavior Analaysis work as well as other (as you would call) "pseudo-science" study techniques. So. Also, as far as generational evolution goes, that would require a longitudinal study I believe and that may or may not have been done. Actually I DO believe the study you are questioning (the lesbian study) was a longitudinal study, which is actually pretty rigorous according to (at least my governing body ASHA) I would have to look up where it falls on the scale of scientific rigorousness but those studies are at the top if I recall (case studies being near the bottom). Actually, in my field case studies (much lower scientific rigor) are performed much more often and used to help with clinical indicators and treatments and are somewhat valid, so a longitudinal study such as the one done is pretty close to being pretty rigid...

Posted By: Alyson Davenport | June 27, 2010 12:54 AM

I didn't hear about the study of lesbian parents, but all of the other research I've read indicates that paternal involvement results in a host of positive traits like better self-esteem, greater tolerance for risk, more independence, and so on.

I have lots of anecdotal evidence for the importance of fathers, too. It seems everyone I know who's emotionally healthy had a kind, caring, actively involved father or father figure. In contrast, literally everyone I know who has a significant area of emotional damage had a poor relationship (or no relationship) with his or her father. In my experience, the latter holds true even when the individual had a good relationship with his or her mother.

Posted By: TheLordIsMyShepherd | June 27, 2010 2:12 AM

Alyson's (ahem) comments are a perfect example of "having just enough knowledge to be dangerous." I have a doctorate in a clinical biological discipline. I am used to looking at studies that have hard science behind them. The study mentioned by the rather dim Atlantic magazine author (it's clear she wrote this mainly for the publicity aspect) DOES NOT. The lead author is NOT a psychologist or a biologist or a psychiatrist but a SOCIOLOGIST. Surveys indicate that sociologists are frequently politically-motivated in their research.

As I said earlier, there are too many variables in these kinds of constructs to draw meaningful conclusions. There are equally valid studies, ignored by the author of this article, that show some children brought up by homosexuals have more psychological pathology. Since this phenomenon has been studied only recently it's not possible to have long term studies (see Logic 101).

With regard to my earlier comments Alyson says that that I would conclude "all the studies done in social science to treat autism, articualtion disorders, etc are "pseudo science" studies and not truly helping any people then." That's patently ridiculous. Read what I wrote. I didn't say those studies didn't have merit, I said that we need to be careful about accepting the putative conclusions about some "study" without knowing the study-design and without a fair employment of common sense. The studies don't design themselves, they are designed by flawed human beings.

Posted By: Truthmeister | June 27, 2010 8:43 AM

While the British have accepted that the family unit (ie father, mother, kid) is the conner stand of any society, Americans' are still mired in "nature re-construction".

Western society is mired with social problems because of this family unit de-constrution. It's no suprise that the demise of the american society is being talked more frequently these days. Europe has long gone down this path and is shrinking.

Mother's are nature-ly good parents because of their flesh and blood bond. What a father brings to a child's development is beyond that.

Anyways do heed to the pseudo-science that is Atlantic. That's the only way we asians will rule this world. When an "advance" society disappears. That's how u guys got rule that world anyways.

Posted By: alan | June 28, 2010 1:37 AM

Thanks for the solid teaching, Amy. I would like to add that, ultimately, God is Abba Father to us all. I am accutely aware of this because I'm a single mom with three teenage boys. We bear witness to the fact that God is indeed "a father to the fatherless." Psalm 68.

Posted By: Cherish the Cross | June 28, 2010 7:30 AM

Although, I am sure that many single moms, out of necessity, have raised incredible children, the ideal is still to have a father and a mother in the home, since they each bring a unique perspective to child rearing.

I think that men, in general, have been taking a beating since the advent of hard-core feminism in our culture. You will notice that in sitcoms of the last 30 years, the fathers are usually stupid and bumbling, compared to the super mom they are married to. (We've come a long way from "Father Knows Best!")

Many would say that, "It's about time!" and that men had it coming, since there was a time when women were oppressed, but I would like to see both moms and dads and women and men valued equally. Surely, we can raise up one without putting down the other.

Thanks for a very thoughtful article.

Posted By: Suzy | June 29, 2010 11:28 AM

I'll tell you why Dads matter, because my brother and I grew up without ours. Lost him to alcoholism when brother was 2 and I was 5. Daddy is essential to Daughter because without him, she will never learn how a young man is SUPPOSED to treat her as a young lady. If Dad doesn't make her feel special in and of herself FIRST, then she will fall prey to the first guy who makes her feel that way. A good Dad should mirror what Father God's relationship with his daughter should be like. Without Dad in her life, Daughter will struggle to identify God as Father, too. Dad is also important in his son's life, because it's Dad who teaches him to BE a man. To BE a proper husband and father. If Dad is not there, the young man struggles to find his identity as a man, often finding it in improper or self destructive things. It can damage his self esteem for the rest of his life, to the point where he is incapable of any intimate relationships, including one with Father God, because he will feel that he can just never measure up. I don't have a psychology degree, but I've lived it. Watched my brother live it, and now my husband lives it. Bottom line: DAD IS IMPORTANT. That was God's original plan. Period.

Posted By: Cherri Vanover | July 5, 2010 8:04 AM

There are so many false assumptions about gender in these comments that I don't even know where to start. *headdesk*

Posted By: anon | July 7, 2010 5:57 PM

Here's the real problem: You can't say whether men make an "objectively necessary" contribution to the good of their children unless you know what "good" means.

Since a truly good person does more than just avoid "crime, obesity, poverty, and trouble in school," this study can tell us little about how to raise truly good children.

Posted By: Jim | July 11, 2010 10:32 PM