Why are there so many crappy fathers?

Great Debates
21

Well, having been around for almost 55 years I would suggest that the average decent father expresses his love for his children to a much larger degree than 40 years ago. Education based on the women’s movement I believe is largely responsible for that.

On the other hand, the the diminishment of universal social morality in American culture (I’m not moralizing) beginning with the lack of respect for the older generation, the media focus on the glorification of youth and sex, and the casual approach to divorce etc. have left many men somewhat resentful and powerless.
These men have either no moral focus, and/or are too immature to understand the apparent “negative” behavior of their children or deeply resentful to their former spouses.

22

A blog I was reading pointed out something that called this into question. Remember, in evolution, it doesn’t matter how many kids YOU have; it matters how many kids YOUR KIDS have. If you have ten kids and they all die of neglect before they hit puberty, you aren’t any farther ahead.

For another thing, if you just have sex with a woman once, you stand a good chance of her being at the infertile part of her menstrual cycle; but if you shack up with her, you can keep at it until she’s pregnant.

All this to say that the “drop & run” strategy isn’t necessarily the best evolutionary strategy for males. You may have children littering the landscape, but if they aren’t well raised enough to have lots of healthy children of their own, your genes are on their way out. Contributing to ensuring that fewer, but healthier and more likely reproductively successful, kids may do more for your genes than slutting about.

23

Er, no. The mother and father have exactly the same genetic stake in a child; that is to say, (on average) 1/2 of the genome. However, the mother has a higher material stake; she spends 9 months gestating the child, and roughly 2 years suckling it, while in the meantime unable to support another child, whereas the father need only contribute sperm. A father can therefore go on to sire numerous children simultaneously, thereby increasing his chances of having his genetic heritage passed on, while a mother is biologically required to care for and nurture a child in order to protect her genetic heritage. Compounding this is the fact that a father may never be certain that a child is actually his progeny; it is, in fact, to the mother’s advantage to sleep with the strongest/smartest/most handsome man she can find (and as many of them as possible), but form a permanent alliance with a male most likely to provide resources for her children exclusively.

One can see this kind of evolutionary calculation with bees; by giving workers a heavy genetic investment in the queen’s offspring (even though they can have no offspring of their own) it is to their advantage to sacrifice themselves in order to continue the line. They don’t actually think about this, of course; it’s simply a result of the genetic “strategy” of gene propagation.

However, humans do think, and this kind of hypothesizing assumes that human sexuality and reproduction are merely behaviorist responses that are genetically hardwired into the brain which fails to take into account social and environmental influences. Human beings are not bees; our relational programming is not so simple as to conform to a small set of easily measurable parameters. Fathers in tightly knit societies where abandonment is looked down up will tend to remain with their children out of a sense of duty and to conform to expectations, whereas dads in highly transient societies (where fathers may not be needed or even wanted) will roll on because there is no advantage to hanging around, and most likely the example of fatherhood was not presented to them. Genetic programming or not, most of our social behavior–how we interact with others–is learned in childhood via emulation of primary adult figures. This isn’t to diminish the influence of genetics on emotional impulses or neurological problems, but our actions are based on the examples that have influenced us.

As for the debate on whether fathers are better/worse now than in the past, so far I’ve seen a lot of anecdotal claims (based upon the personal experience of the claimant) but not a single cite which establishes either position. Certainly, childhood abandonment by one or both parents is far from unusual–one need only look at the pantheon of jazz greats to see that the vast majority of them were abandoned or abused by one or both parents–and the “Father Knows Best” nostalgia of the past is mostly crap; plenty of people who grew up in white-bread '50s suburbia have the same complaints about uninvolved (if not physically absent) parents as everyone else.

We’ve heard much in recent years about (dare I repeat it?) “young black fathers abandoning pregnant mothers and children” but in fact the fathers aren’t needed to provide in a material sense, and the cultural example most commonly seen there is children raised exclusively by mothers and grandmothers. I suppose we could make some kind of sociobiological attempt to tie such a behavior to “black genes”, but not only would such an argument come under fire from critics of bigotry, but it would also be highly suspect in any scientific sense. We might just as well argue that “white, single mothers” are the result of some kind of genetic virus working its mechanism on middle class Caucasians, instead of acknowledging that a relaxation of societal prohibitions against unwed motherhood, combined with the greater mobility and reluctance toward lifelong romantic commitments, and supported by a vast increase in possibilities for women to be economically self-reliant plays a much larger role than any kind of genetic influence, especially one that defines itself in the purely intellectual construct of “race”.

So, why are there so many crappy fathers (in your provincial view of the world)? Most likely 'cause they had crappy fathers who didn’t provide a good example of being a good father; or because they have other emotional or mental problems (alcoholism, depression, neurological disorder, et cetera) which prevent them from enacting the role of a responible parent.

Stranger

24

Are you saying psychological “theories” are falsifiable?

25

You’re thinking of Freud and the psychoanalyists. Their theories are unfalsifiable, but they are not considered valid by modern research psychologists, who research their theories using the scientific method–and yes, they use the same principles to formulate “good theories” that scientists do.

26

True. In some parts of the world, at some times, it was probably in dad’s genetic interest to hang around and help take care of the kids. While in other parts of the world, and at other times, a hit and run strategy is superior. Which is why men run the gamut, IMHO.

And THEN you bail :slight_smile:

Again, I agree.

27

This hypothesis makes a lot of sense if one assumes that our human evolution mostly occured in large societies where the individual is largely expendable.

More likely, I would suspect, early hominids were comprised of competing tribes who would require the sustenance of all the children regardless
of a particular parent. Strength in numbers. While women might well have had greater concern for their own children, the men might well have not known which child is whose, but worked in concert with their buddies, (male bonding) to sustain and protect the whole tribe and thus ensure the success of their genes.

The “drop and run” strategy might also be employed as a shotgun approach to spreading genes amongst other tribes. Like rape in war.

28

And I can name quite a number of women who have had children with bad boys, and who now regret that decision. Not all of them, unfortunately, have found a good guy to help raise their children.

29

Which doesn’t justify the blanket statement that Fear Itself made, saying that “most women” do this. Some women undoubtedly do it. “Most”? No way.

Missed this earlier.

I am disputing the statement that “most women” are attracted to bad boys, and that “most women” will have children with them. I also dispute his statement that implies all these women will then seek out some “good guy” for mercenary purposes (to be a good provider and raise her kids).

This little theory smacks of misogyny. Also, he has yet to back it up with any hard evidence. I pointed out that there exists no reputable scientific research that would give adequate support for this statement. FearItself has yet to respond with anything but cheap shots about psychologists.

30

Let us restrict the discussion to the effects of the values of a particular subculture and of socioeconomics, which may or may not correlate with race in any particular society.

Historically being generationally upwardly mobile within a society has required having fewer children and investing more resources in seeing each one achieve as highly as possible. A subculture that has an expectation of continued long-term two parent involvement and of high investment in fewer children’s success will have more generational upward mobility in socioeconomic class status than a subculture that does not, and such a result feed-forwards on itself. (Note: this discussion is limited to socioeconomic success, not evolutionary success*, but the evolutionary factors are relatively glacial in effect compared to the cultural ones and are therefore swamped out in modern times).

In short, if you are successfully middle-class, especially if your family became middle-class over the last several generations, then you likely have had models of involved fathers investing heavily in their children among your parents an grandparents. Because that was an important factor in becoming middle-class. And if your family has been poor for many generations, then those father models are less likely present, you will therefore be less likely to emulate them. And you will, in many ways, be the poorer for it.

*For a discussion on the factors at work on the evolutionary time scale, I’d refer you to Steven Pinker’s How The Mind Works which has a superb discussion of the subject.

31

Right.

I also think that in general- fathers who *really are *Fathers are better parents than Mothers. That’s because a father has greater choice in skipping out. A Bad or uncaring biological father will “skip out” whilst caring Dad’s will stay around.

32

We’ve gotten this far with no statistics? OK, here’s a few, from the National Fatherhood Initiative:
[ul]24 million children (34 percent) live absent their biological father.[/ul]
[ul]Nearly 20 million children (27 percent) live in single-parent homes[/ul]
[ul]About 40 percent of children in father-absent homes have not seen their father at all during the past year; 26 percent of absent fathers live in a different state than their children; and 50 percent of children living absent their father have never set foot in their father’s home.[/ul]
[ul]From 1960 to 1995, the proportion of children living in single-parent homes tripled, from 9 percent to 27 percent, and the proportion of children living with married parents declined. However, from 1995 to 2000, the proportion of children living in single-parent homes slightly declined, while the proportion of children living with two married parents remained stable.[/ul]

So that third one does seem to indicate that absentee fathers is quite a problem, and is a greater problem than in 1960, but it doesn’t tell us if the problem is any worse than absentee mothers. The 1996 census did show that 85% of parents in a single-parent household are women, it also showed that “Mothers were more likely to receive child support from absentee fathers than fathers were from absentee mothers,” but doesn’t give numbers. However, even if 100% of those absentee mothers did not pay child support, that’s still only 15% of non-custodial parents. It goes on to report ,
[ul]Focusing on custodial mothers, the report found that moms were most likely to receive payments if they were wealthier, white, educated, older than 30 and divorced.[/ul]
[ul]Sixty-two percent of poor women received at least some of the money, compared with 73 percent of non-poor women. Nearly three out of four white women got something; for blacks it was 59 percent and for Latinos, 58 percent.[/ul]
[ul]Just over half of women who had never been married got payments vs. 73 percent of those who had been divorced.[/ul]

So it does seem like the OP has a point, even if it doesn’t agree with your personal friends. (It sure does agree with my experiences!) There’s probably demographic factors at play, too. My suspicion, though I don’t know for sure, is that American Dopers are whiter and richer than the general population, and those demographics are better at supporting their children, according to the census numbers.

I think the reasons why have already been articulated.

  1. Men can not know they’ve fathered children.
  2. Our society doesn’t place high value on the unique things a father can provide (in fact, we’ve gone so “equalitarian,” that we deny that dads can provide anything at all that moms don’t.)
  3. Women are the assumed primary caregivers, even when they’re not; this can create a sense for dads that they’re not important in a child’s life.
  4. Courts are still overwhelmingly awarding custody to women - now, whether this is because the men aren’t asking for it or the judge decides in favor of the woman is another debate, and one I can’t quickly find stats on. But the sheer numbers are so unbalanced that it’s easy to dismiss the fact that a higher percentage of non-custodial MOTHERS don’t pay child support.
33

Frankly, because I was feeling lazy and figured I’d get around to it later.

34 percent means that “most” women are not having kids with “bad boys” who take off. A fair proportion, yes. But not most. There is also no saying that all those dads are “bad boys.” It also doesn’t prove that the moms of kids with now-absent fathers knew about the flaws in those guys when they got pregnant by them.

And we have zero proof that the mothers of those 24 million children then go out to find a “good guy” with totally mercenary intentions (provider and dad), as FearItself alleged.

34

brickbacon, If I subscribe to your premise that fathers are absent that would mean each successive generation of fathers are taught parenting skills by their mothers. Which would place the job of breaking the cycle on mothers.

IMO you are seeing the direct result of the 2 income family. My generation was probably the last of the single income family. What you had was a very specific delineation of job structure and traditionally men were tasked with earning income. Mothers were tasked with maintaining the household and raising children. Those skills were passed down from mother to daughter. With the introduction of the 2 income family those skills were lost to the constraints of time. A working mother with the skills to raise children did not have time to pass on those skills. Working fathers never had the high skill levels traditionally held by mothers.

My mother cooked, did laundry, cleaned house and most importantly trained her children the social skills needed to survive. My father earned money, maintained the yard, the cars and the structural needs of the house. Looking back on my training, I never received cooking instructions from my mother or the intimate knowledge of nurturing that mothers teach their daughters. Despite this, I was always keenly aware of my mothers skills and am able to draw from what she taught me through observation. It is the same way a child benefits musically from living with parents who play music. Both my parents were VERY good at what they did and I learned a lot from each of them. I would put their high school education against my college degree any day. ANY DAY.

I personally believe the skills of parenting are diminished by the loss of time associated with earning an income. My father had the basic parenting skills to deal with children but he was not “trained” to train in that respect. If it were not for my mother’s skill in this area I would not have learned (by observation) what I know today. If you were to ask her about her “technique” you’d probably get a blank stare. She taught the lessons of life directly without a lesson plan. As an example of the difference: my father new that you were to be quiet in a restaurant and would tell me to “settle down”. My mother would explain WHY I should be quiet in a restaurant.

Well, that’s my 2C. Sorry if I rambled.

35

WhyNot, one reason to not go to the cites is that the stats are so messy. (How do you link to a pdf?) This is McLanahan and Carlson, Wefare Reform, Fertility and Father Involvement www.futureofchildren.org Hard to know if those “single-parent” homes really always are.

The numbers cited reflect less a situation of “crappy fathers” than it reflects the decreasing popularity of marriage and the pervasiveness of “fragile families”, especially among the poor. Nor do any available stats measure the quality of the father-child interaction.

Magiver when you say

you buy into a popular myth. Truth be told your generation was one of the only of the single income family. That was mainly a post WW2 occurence. Before that for most of society both parents worked. That has been the traditional family structure.

36

And what were the stats in 1960?

Perhaps I have a skewed perception, my father was raised primarily by his maternal grandparents from age two to six. His mother had him during WWII, she was married to his father (at least at the time of his birth, his conception is something I have never gotten a straight answer on and would have to go to the courthouse to confirm my suspicions). His parents were divorced before he was two and he never saw his bio father after that. So I’m somewhat less likely than most to buy into the “families were intact in the 1950s” belief than most.

Now comes the other part of the story, and the part that may be pertenient here. My bio-grandfather did lose contact, but not because he didn’t try (at least according to him, when he reestabilished contact 30 some years later). He lost contact because my grandmother packed up, moved back to her home state and to her parents, and then marked all his letters “return to sender.” By the time he was contacted by an attorney to reliquish parental rights to my grandmothers second husband (my grandfather) he had not received acknowledgement that my father was still alive and healthy for four years and felt that reliquishing parental rights, under the circumstances, was the best that could be done for his son. In other words, how many “bad dads” are bad because they choose to be, and how many give up when their significant others move into bitch mode.

As DSeid points out, stats are notoriously bad. Not sure if its still the case, but in The Way We Never Were, Stephanie Coontz points out that in California, a child was marked as born to a single mother if the last names on the birth certificate didn’t match. Since not every women changes her name with marriage - and California has a larger than average population from cultures where that is not the norm - we may be overestimating single parents in California.

My cousin is due any day now. Unmarried. She is, however living with her boyfriend, who she has been dating for five years. And has every intention of eventually marrying him. Not the order I choose to do things in, but it is the order many people do it in.

37

So as not to take the hijack too far, I’ll just say absolutely.

38

Father = Motherfucker

It’s a tautology. :eek: :stuck_out_tongue: :wink:

39

[QUOTE=DSeid.

Magiver when you sayyou buy into a popular myth. Truth be told your generation was one of the only of the single income family. That was mainly a post WW2 occurence. Before that for most of society both parents worked. That has been the traditional family structure.[/QUOTE]

You’re confusing a time line of history with current events. I addressed the conditions that pertain to this discussion. What happened in 1850 is irrelevant to what happened in 1950. The premise of the debate was that fatherhood has gone to hell in a handcart in recent years. And regardless of what workforce ratios existed in the past, women have traditionally been the caregivers in the United States.

40

I dunno, this sounds pretty “crappy” to me. YMMV.

Your statistics are more about out-of-wedlock births, which I’m not so concerned about. Mine are about absentee fatherism, which seems more relevant to the debate. Whether or not some other man has stepped into the picture, the biological father being absent is worrisome to me. (And, full disclosure, my 12 year old hasn’t seen his bio-dad in 7 years, although I’ve been happily married to another man for 5 years.)

9% for single-parent households, by my reading. Even if we subtract the 15% from today’s figure in deference to DSeid’s source, that means today’s number is at least 12%, still a substantial increase. I can’t find information on the absentee father rate.

By the way Dangerosa, I agree that the Good Old Days weren’t for everyone. My grandmother and grandfather were both raised by their grandparents after both their mothers and fathers split on them. This was before the Great Depression. Still, the big picture suggests that our families were the exceptions back then, nowhere near the 34% of children living without their biological father today.