Recently, I have encountered the misfortune of reading Wade F. Horn’s article, “Promoting Marriage as a Means for Promoting Fatherhood.” The piece in particular describes exactly what the title suggests: marriage is the most important means for keeping fathers involved in their child’s life. Though the idea seems practical enough, upon further consideration, I found myself running over pot-holes along the road Horn paves with persuasion to the idea that marriage is the proverbial glue keeping the family unit intact. A detour presented itself in the direction of what seems a far more important (and obvious) matter we should be directing our attention towards in regards to promoting fatherhood: What is a Father?
The real problem facing men with children is that some men cannot even answer this question correctly, let alone, portray a moral image for their children to follow.
So, is a father a card on holidays? Is a father a babysitter that lets kids stay up late? Is a father a vacation from discipline and homework? Where have all the answers gone?
In the past, the answer to fatherless homes rested in their checkbook; fathers were assigned as cash machines rather than role models. Then if the fathers do not have the means to pay such “support” their licenses are revoked and wages are garnished which, aside from breeding resentment, only sets the father back further from even providing himself as such cash machine in that without transportation it becomes increasingly difficult to get to work to make the money to provide. Child support is not the answer. Fatherhood does not have a price tag.
I believe we each can recognize the lack of monetary value attached to fathers, but most fail to see the real problem facing abandoned children: fatherhood abandonment. In the text, Horn’s answer is to promote marriage outreach programs for troubled couples and certain similar preventative counseling to ensure divorce never emerge on the horizon. This idea is erroneous. If any preventative measures should be taken it should be within the correct territory of the issue, that is, preventing the abandonment of fatherhood to ensure the abandonment of children never emerge on the horizon.
It is very simple here, folks. It makes more sense to promote fatherhood as a means for promoting fatherhood. Instill fatherly values in our boys so they grow up knowing what a father represents to his children, regardless if the mother is wearing a ring on her left hand or not. Socially, if the common person happened to see a little boy playing with a baby doll he or she might react to such behavior as bizarre, when in reality, these mannerisms should be responded with encouragement and be positively enforced as we do with girls. Instead, we train our boys to work, to be the money maker, and to lay the proverbial hammer down in the cliché that Father’s must rule their household with an iron fist in order to gain respect. This is the extent in which we teach our boys to behave in regards to family. This is a flaw in the way our society portrays what a father should be. The only answer to, not only fatherless homes but more importantly fatherless children, is to teach our boys and our men the importance of bonding and nurturing.
Nevertheless, a time machine has yet to be invented so we are stuck with the current crisis at hand. Currently, there are some men with children out there that, no matter what the circumstance (married, unmarried, non-residential, black, white, rich or poor), simply do not bond with their child. They do not find the importance in building such a vital connection since over the years fathers have been used as merely a financial backbone and nothing more. In the text, Horn describes a strategy for alleviating the financial expectation from fathers by advocating enhanced visitation as the mechanism for improving the well-being of children. This is a splendid idea, however it rules out a possibility that I find so piercing it simply cannot be ignored—the increase in fatherless homes is due to the fact that some men simply do not want to be a father; they do not have what it takes be a parent. Fatherhood aside, parenting in general is hard, but what is not so hard is giving up. It is easy for some fathers to decide not to be a “real” father and to brush their children aside as they would stained boxers. So the idea of increasing visitation among these men that do not want to be a part of their child’s life would clearly be horrific. Research on disruptions in early childhood attachment figures suggest children are worse off having known and been rejected by the father than if a relationship with the father were never established.
This brings up the matter of cohabitation—the issue of men living in a home with children that are not genetically connected to the man. The text states cohabitation involving biologically unrelated children substantially increases the risk of physical and sexual child abuse. So, cohabitation is going to make a normal well-minded man into a child molester or sadistic child abuser? I doubt this means to provide such an accusation, but it does perpetuate the stereotype of “the evil stepfather.” Unsurprisingly, this only worsens fatherlessness in that it seems the men that actually have a grasp of the substance behind the title “Father” get clumped in like cat litter with the statistics of pedophiles. Horn masquerades a ridiculous attack on good men that I believe deserve a lot more credit than the article offers. Stepfathers have the ability to put forth a healthy male presence in a child’s life that the child otherwise would not have. The text fails to reveal the positive statistics on healthy blended families and opts for smearing good men that are raising and accepting children that are not biologically linked to them, though still very much their own.
There seems to be a subtle competition between non-resident fathers versus in-home father’s (a category in which stepfathers should be included in, as well) in regards to authoritative parenting—that is, listening to the child’s problems, giving them advice, providing explanations for rules, helping with their homework, engaging in mutual projects, and disciplining them. Authoritative parenting is shown to improve psychological health in comparison to those children who were not offered such parenting; however, this type of parenting has been socially pegged as the mothers job. This puts some men in the position to step away from the most important part of fatherhood, the teaching aspect, and allows them to escape parental responsibility. Being that this role is a woman’s niche on a societal as opposed to family specific role, the circumstances of non-resident or live-in fathers is just as irrelevant to fatherhood as is marriage. A man is the father he is regardless if he is living with the child or not. Negligence has nothing to do with the geographic location of a father to his child.
This theory drops a nuke into the lazy boy recliner of all the men out there that feel justified with their absence because their failed marriage is now the scapegoat for their guilt; however, this absolutely proves my point in that we should be focusing on teaching fatherhood, as opposed to marriage. So, sorry Wade F. Horn (if that is his real name) promoting marriage as a means for promoting fatherhood is as logical as promoting war for means of declaring peace.
The truth is, one cannot attach a definition to what a father should be. Within this certain family role, there are too many components to consider which make all the grey areas some people fail to take into account, impossible to concur. If we as a society can promote nurturing of education, positive behavior, health, and compassion, I believe the bond between father and child will evolve into a structure of boundaries and safety that children crave. Fathers should provide, not only as a financial backbone but a backbone of support and reliance in order to shape their children into kindhearted, gracious people with a good soul.
“A man's worth is measured by how he parents his children. What he gives them, what he keeps away from them, the lessons he teaches and the lessons he allows them to learn on their own.”