Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

3 Studies About Fatherhood that Will Shock You (But Shouldn’t)

Here are some fresh perspectives for Father’s Day.

by
Leslie Loftis

Bio

June 15, 2014 - 7:00 am
Page 1 of 6  Next ->   View as Single Page

shutterstock_189477551

Common law, case law, moves slowly. It basically crowd-sources notions of fairness and justice over time and turns them into rules. Normally this works well. But when the assumptions that informed the common law were faulty, then precedent drags positive change.

We can see this happening in child custody arrangements. The precedents set in the 1970s when the divorce rate rose were informed by Freudian attachment-theory studies in the post-war era on orphans, as they were the most commonly found victims of fractured families. As attachment theory developed, psychologists started studying mothers and young children. It seemed a logical first layer of detail to examine given the expectations that women took care of the children while men worked outside the home.

When the divorce rate rose in the ’70s and courts had to start declaring custody arrangements, the experts recommended primary mother care because they didn’t have data for anything else. From a 1992 “Origins of Attachment Theory” paper in Developmental Psychology:

Although we have made progress in examining mother-child attachment, much work needs to be done with respect to studying attachment in the microsystem of family relationships (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Despite studies by Belsky, Gilstrap, and Rovine (1984), Lamb (1978), and Parke and Tinsley (1987) that show fathers to be competent, if sometimes less than fully participant attachment figures, we still have much to learn regarding father attachment.

Formal studies of children in broken homes didn’t really start until the ’80s when there were children of divorce to study and a fierce need for relevant data. And the father and child arrangements that the data recommend look little like the modern arrangements formed under the inertia of legal precedent.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
It's probably about time that we start thinking about ceasing to use the word "feminist" as a catch-all and start creating a definition that separates out legitimate feminism and the Southern Poverty Law Center's definition of a hate group:

"All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics."

I see no reason why a legitimate feminist would be in any way opposed to equal rights for men and women, quite the contrary given the history of feminism. You would think legitimate feminists would be the first to want to separate themselves from bigots who fly under a false flag of feminism.

Here is U.K. "feminist" Laurie Penny following the murders by Elliot Rodger:

"But if you think for one second, for one solitary second, that demanding tolerance for men as a group, that dismissing the reality of violence against women because not all men kill, not all men rape, if you think that’s more important than demanding justice for those who have been brutalised and murdered by those not all men, then you are part of the problem. You may not have pulled the trigger. You may not have raised your hand to a woman in your life. But you are part of the problem."

That is not a feminist, but a bigot who is publicly claiming they have no use for human rights, the Magna Carta or the U.S. Constitution. All men are not an accessory after the fact, or Jews, or Arabs, etc. Why would anyone have to point that out to an adult? Best start cracking, cuz people are going to throw out all feminism with the dirty and filthy bath water.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Our toddler is such a daddy's boy that I shudder to think what losing his father would do to him right now. I'm am eternally grateful to have found such a strong and loving partner in life.

We need to start pushing the concept that men, real men, are important and necessary for societal balance and stability.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Read Stu Weber’s book “Tender Warrior”. He relates a story after story about how the absence of fathers (physically, emotionally, financially, and most important spiritually) affect society.
Also I would submit with the shrinking of family size and the disparate nature of society, the lack of uncles does not help (especially with boys). Hence the need for good coaches/teachers/scouts leaders etc.
As for professional feminists, they tend to be misandristic and fearful that someone my breach the barrier of their ivory tower.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (24)
All Comments   (24)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
And then there's the inhabitant of the Casa Blanca...
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Fathers are indispensable figures in a child's life as they bring a viewpoint on how the world works that is invaluable to children just as their mothers' are. Real diversity starts in the home where the male instinct and the female instinct are on full display, and from which a child can glean actions and responses to action in many different shades.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Reason and rationaity itself have fled the divorce custody business because it is not about finding the best situation for children, it is about enforcing the time-honored transaction of "kids for money". If shared parenting is allowed, or father custody, then that whole dynamic crumbles.

Women in divorce get the right to withhold access to the marital children in exchange for extracting large sums of money from their exes. No money, no visitation, and courts as currently constituted don't punish ex-wives for not allowing agreed visits or sleep-overs. As long as children remain pawns in this kind of conflict, they will be used by angry ex-wives to punish ex-husbands.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
<------- A single father who raised 4 children over the last 25 years...None of this is shocking but rather old news. A hat tip to all the other single fathers out there. Keep up the good work... Shock on!
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
An unscientific skim of the news stories suggests to me that it isn't the single mothers who are killing their children, so much as it is the single mothers' boyfriends. Yes, the mother has legal custody, so she is responsible.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Step mothers tend to be the villains in fairy tales but in real life it is usually the mother's boyfriend cast in the role of short term step father who is the bad guys when it comes to domestic violence.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
No, there is quite a record of mothers killing their children. Strangely, if she kills more than 2 or 3 then these events are covered like school shootings except the statistical danger of mother care isn't highlighted. Then it is family, and often the father, pinpointed as failing her--failing to notice her depression, failing to help with the kids, failing to get her some medical care, etc. But you are correct, it is the combination of maternal abuse and the much higher incidence of abuse by non-biological males living in the home that makes sole maternal custody statistically the most dangerous arrangement for children.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Related to your "school shootings" point, these mother-on-children incidents are very often drownings and stabbings. Those are homicide methods that usually indicate a very personal desire involved in the killing.
Clearly we need to remove knives and bathtubs from all mothers unless they have background checks. And we can't permit one person to sell a mother a bathtub as a private transaction unless the seller does a background check on the mother.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
To understand women--ALL women--read the "manosphere" blogs. What this book reports is 100% in keeping with what the manosphere reveals about women, and what our culture has kept you ignorant of.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm surprised Ms. Loftis's article wasn't preceded by a "trigger-warning" cautioning frail (feminine) readers about the dangers of considering shared parenting with those evil men-creatures. BTW, what ever happened to, "I am woman, hear me roar..."?
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
there is a difference between feminine and feminist. feminine recognize the value in male and female - feminists are frequently misandrists to varying degrees. feminine women understand the best situation for children is a male and female parent. feminists only want sperm donors - if they want children at all.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
It's probably about time that we start thinking about ceasing to use the word "feminist" as a catch-all and start creating a definition that separates out legitimate feminism and the Southern Poverty Law Center's definition of a hate group:

"All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics."

I see no reason why a legitimate feminist would be in any way opposed to equal rights for men and women, quite the contrary given the history of feminism. You would think legitimate feminists would be the first to want to separate themselves from bigots who fly under a false flag of feminism.

Here is U.K. "feminist" Laurie Penny following the murders by Elliot Rodger:

"But if you think for one second, for one solitary second, that demanding tolerance for men as a group, that dismissing the reality of violence against women because not all men kill, not all men rape, if you think that’s more important than demanding justice for those who have been brutalised and murdered by those not all men, then you are part of the problem. You may not have pulled the trigger. You may not have raised your hand to a woman in your life. But you are part of the problem."

That is not a feminist, but a bigot who is publicly claiming they have no use for human rights, the Magna Carta or the U.S. Constitution. All men are not an accessory after the fact, or Jews, or Arabs, etc. Why would anyone have to point that out to an adult? Best start cracking, cuz people are going to throw out all feminism with the dirty and filthy bath water.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
they also scream about women's rights - but look the other way when muslim women are murdered in the name of their religion. they loved teddy kennedy, and love bill Clinton. both of whom notoriously treated women like dirt.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
I agree with the sentiment of your comment, but using the Southern Poverty Law Center as a source of anything legitimate really does not help your cause. Do yourself a favor and ignore this bogus organization. A little research will show you how biased and ridiculous they are. I believe even the US government has distanced themselves from this radical organization.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Granted that SPLC is a hate group itself, but using their definition against feminists is deliciously ironic.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Our toddler is such a daddy's boy that I shudder to think what losing his father would do to him right now. I'm am eternally grateful to have found such a strong and loving partner in life.

We need to start pushing the concept that men, real men, are important and necessary for societal balance and stability.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
We need to reinstate that idea.
It helps if real women like their real men and vice versa. It's gotta be mutual.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm the father of two girls and two boys and I know what you mean--but think about it for a moment: any society such that "We need to start pushing the concept that men, real men, are important and necessary..." is what? A society utterly morally confused? Bankrupt? Already lost? Moronic? Damned?

Frederic Bastiat wrote: “When misguided public opinion honors what is despicable and despises what is honorable, punishes virtue and reward vice, encourages what is harmful and discourages what is useful, applauds falsehood and smothers truth under indifference or insult, a nations turns its back on progress and can be restored only by the terrible lessons of catastrophe."

Yep.

And he wrote that before 1850.

An Préachán
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
The Old Testament speaks of those who (paraphrase, copy not at hand) "...love evil and hate good..."
Ideas change, though. At the time those lines were written, blasphemy was considered a good reason to stone someone to death. Today we roundly condemn those who still do it. Among other standards that have changed.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Christians dont stone people for blasphemy anymore, but some muslim nations still do. And leftists do a pretty job of virtual stoning of anybody who says anything they dont like.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
the bible also teaches about children being fatherless as an 'affliction'. having myself grown up without a father, and now the parent of four adult children who have a father in the home - there is a huge difference.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
It's becoming more and more understood that fathers are extraordinarily important.

23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Howdy Bill
I might phrase that as "...fathers are very important..." Or "crucial." There should be nothing extraordinary about the role of fathers.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All