If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Fathers and Children
In the course of the x-posted thread, I came accross this
article which brings some of the important things about children's nurturing into focus as it relates to the gender of the person who is nuturing the child. I suspect it might be of special interest to those here who are SAHDs. http://www.zerotothree.org/fathers.html Short quote, much more at the website. There is no such thing as a fatherless child. Children whose fathers are not in their daily lives start looking for their fathers as soon as it becomes clear to them that kids have moms and dads, even though their dad may not be immediately obvious. As a clinician and researcher observing the connections that young children seek from the adult world, I've seen the search countless times: Children who can't find their fathers make one up or appropriate one to their liking, whether or not they call him "Daddy." In a young child who has not felt some form of masculine nurture, the hunger for a paternal presence can be insatiable. It is the presence of this hunger, beginning so early in children's lives, that tips us off to the overall significance of men in the lives of developing children. As a well-known maxim about the early years reminds us, appetites tend to serve the survival and well-being of the infant. The child's hunger for a father is no different. The discussion that follows will review what we have come to understand about the unique contribution that men bring to the lives of young children, and how male presence works to promote development. We will also discuss how ongoing nurturing interaction with their own and other people's children affects men - often profoundly. Much of the literature of the past several decades that has focused on men and young children focuses on biological fathers specifically. But to the child, emotional paternity is what matters, and it is the child who eventually designates emotional paternity. Consequently, "father-effect" research is likely to be more meaningful if we assume that the literature addresses the psychological, or "life" father, rather than the "birth" or biological father. Fathers do not "mother" any more than mothers ever "father." In their dealings with young children, men tend to resemble other men much more than they do women - whatever the biological relationships between the men and the children may be. From the beginning of children's lives, fathers handle babies differently than mothers do. At first glance, one might think that men's and women's differing levels of experience with infants might explain differences in handling, but close observations document that even men who are very experienced with children handle them differently from women. Not better not worse, but differently. How does this happen? And what difference - if any does it make to the baby? -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Fathers and Children
Thanks for extracting this from the "10 ways to be a beter father" thread. I
don't visit that one anymore, but would have been sorry to miss this. Note: It might even be interesting for you to post it on one of the other forums seperately and see what different reception it gets?! "toto" wrote in message ... .... http://www.zerotothree.org/fathers.html A child who has bonded with his/her dad during early years and is then stripped of that relationship will suffer berievement. (So will the dad, beleive you me!) I was myself astounded when a social worker dismissed my son's affection for me as simply a result of my being just there for 'fun times' with no commitment to the real day to day care. I responded that I too had shopping, cooking and washing to do and a job as well. That both parents should be spending 'fun' time with their kids. I was glad to see that the father's instinctive biological drive to nurture the child (and care for it's mum) was well acknowledged in this article. This is something we all really know, and something the substitute or step father will not have, no matter how we rationalise it. You can't change your emotions with logic. We are talking about something that has evolved with us from humble origins in the primordial slime. Part of the "selfish gene" and essential to survival of our species. No -ism or doctrine can change it. IOW it is the way the Lord created us! I do also know fathers, who have walked away from their children, or even denied them since birth. This is not because their instinctive drive or love for their children is under-developed. Sadly it is (my experience) because in the present social framework, resulting conflict with the child's mother would be more damaging to the child than retracting it's paternal input. It takes a caring parent to realise that and act in the child's interest. Could you do it ? (but please let us not resume the discussion about whether this is dereliction of paternal duties, or the denial of paternal rights... the effect is the same to our kids) It is my contention that the system must be changed so that, where there is parental conflict the child(ren) can have a reltionship with each parent that is entirely _divorced_ from the connection with the other parent. IOW: The concept of a resident and a non-resident parent sucks! For each case a schedule should be defined and the child be resident with the appointed parent in accordance with the schedule. This will eliminate manipulation of the child with ulterior motives and hopefully encourage feuding parents to be adult enough to set their differences aside and make variations by mutual agreement for the benefit of their offspring. Where to start to bring this about ? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Fathers and Children
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:58:15 +1300, "ChrisScaife"
wrote: Thanks for extracting this from the "10 ways to be a beter father" thread. I don't visit that one anymore, but would have been sorry to miss this. Note: It might even be interesting for you to post it on one of the other forums seperately and see what different reception it gets?! No, thanks. I have been to that group a few times, but I no longer bother with it for many reasons. You are welcome to post it there yourself. I think it is a very balanced article about how children need a father in their lives who does care for them in a very different way from the way a mother does. "toto" wrote in message .. . .... http://www.zerotothree.org/fathers.html A child who has bonded with his/her dad during early years and is then stripped of that relationship will suffer berievement. (So will the dad, beleive you me!) Yes. I was myself astounded when a social worker dismissed my son's affection for me as simply a result of my being just there for 'fun times' with no commitment to the real day to day care. I responded that I too had shopping, cooking and washing to do and a job as well. That both parents should be spending 'fun' time with their kids. Both parents should be doing both the fun and the not so fun things that are involved in parenting. From your posts, I think you probably did comfort him when he was sick and take care of him in many ways. I was glad to see that the father's instinctive biological drive to nurture the child (and care for it's mum) was well acknowledged in this article. Me too. This is something we all really know, and something the substitute or step father will not have, no matter how we rationalise it. You can't change your emotions with logic. We are talking about something that has evolved with us from humble origins in the primordial slime. Part of the "selfish gene" and essential to survival of our species. No -ism or doctrine can change it. IOW it is the way the Lord created us! Well, I would not bring religion into it, but I do think the drive to nurture children is universal. OTOH, there was no way to determine paternity prior to DNA testing. Men had to accept that the child was theirs on faith (and there was a time when men and women did not even know the connection of sex to childbirth, but I imagine even then that men protected and nurtured the children of the tribe). I also think that a step-father having the drive to nurture his own children can still bond to the step-son as well and it is a good thing if he does. The bond will not be the same one the child has with the father who was their at birth, that is true, but if the bio-dad is not available, the step-dad may be the one who nurtures him very early in life. I do also know fathers, who have walked away from their children, or even denied them since birth. This is not because their instinctive drive or love for their children is under-developed. I think that depends on the individual case. Sadly it is (my experience) because in the present social framework, resulting conflict with the child's mother would be more damaging to the child than retracting it's paternal input. That's a very difficult call to make though. It takes a caring parent to realise that and act in the child's interest. Yes, it does, and I do think a parent who does this from this motive is Could you do it ? I don't think so, but then I have never been in the situation and I also would be hard put to believe that I could not manage to see the child without contacting the spouse. (but please let us not resume the discussion about whether this is dereliction of paternal duties, or the denial of paternal rights... the ffect is the same to our kids) I agree that it is. It is my contention that the system must be changed so that, where there is parental conflict the child(ren) can have a reltionship with each parent that is entirely _divorced_ from the connection with the other parent. Not a bad idea, but I fail to see how it can be implemented at least for very young children. IOW: The concept of a resident and a non-resident parent sucks! I think again, it depends on individual cases. For each case a schedule should be defined and the child be resident with the appointed parent in accordance with the schedule. This will eliminate manipulation of the child with ulterior motives and hopefully encourage feuding parents to be adult enough to set their differences aside and make variations by mutual agreement for the benefit of their offspring. I would hope so since any schedule that is made would most likely not have equal *time* once the child is in school. And the schedule would seem to me to have to depend on the needs and activities of the child. Where to start to bring this about ? It sounds like you are looking for something between joint custody and a physical custody, visitation arrangement. Imho, joint custody is best, though not when parents have confliicts that they cannot put aside in the interest of the child, so this certainly might work in those cases. I would suggest that you ask some lawyers how such a law could be drawn up and passed. Your country would be different from the US in that regard anyway. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Fathers and Children
"toto" wrote in message ... ..... I think it is a very balanced article about how children need a father in their lives who does care for them in a very different way from the way a mother does. Sadly this difference can result in confict between the parents. For instance, the research confirms the male tendency to stimulate the child more. The mother may see this as inappropriate but somehow they must accomodate the differences. On this forum it was mentioned how the lack of adult time together could contribute to marital breakdown. Certainly if parents start criticising the the way the other handles the children in their presence because they lack opportunity to do it away from them, discord will escalate. I was glad to see that the father's instinctive biological drive to nurture the child (and care for it's mum) was well acknowledged in this article. Me too. This is something we all really know, and something the substitute or step father will not have, no matter how we rationalise it. You can't change your emotions with logic. We are talking about something that has evolved with us from humble origins in the primordial slime. Part of the "selfish gene" and essential to survival of our species. No -ism or doctrine can change it. IOW it is the way the Lord created us! Well, I would not bring religion into it, No may be better not to ;-) but for many, religion sets the moral and social code by which they raise their kids. It is my impression that religions more or less advocate that one should not have children ouside of marriage. It seems to me that one can reach the same conclusion based simply on the fact that evolution principles will have moulded are instincts and desires to strive for just such an enduring family bond. Where there is only sexual attraction the parental bond with children will probably not be so good. The children should be given access to both biological parents and those who are not will often seek out the other parent in later life, perhaps they sensed all along that there was something missing ?! ...to nurture children is universal. If we look to species that are close to us in evolutionary terms e.g. primates, we see there is an intollerance to male rivals. This is the "selfish gene" principle ensuring it's own procreation rather than expending energy raising rival genes. I think female rivalry is similar. Subconsciously our primitive animal instincts lurk just beneath the thin veneer of civilisation and rationalisation that masks it. to determine paternity prior to DNA testing. Men had to accept that the child was theirs on faith (and there was a time when men and women did not even know the connection of sex to childbirth, but I imagine even then that men protected and nurtured the children of the tribe). I think, most of our emotions, including love, stem from our instincts. Men are instinctively posessive about the women they love and driven to fend off rival suitors. The paternal bond may be innate in our species. It certainly is in others. It's that selfish gene again, telling us to nurture our own offspring and not someone else's. Civilisation may have achieved great intellectual works, but when it comes to reproduction we are fundamentally still animals! There have also been cases where babies were swapped by mistake at birth and so they grew up with neither of their biological parents. Perhaps it is sufficient for the parent to believe that the child is theirs. OTOH do you think sometimes these parents might have wondered ? Can we sense these things without understanding why ? I also think that a step-father having the drive to nurture his own children can still bond to the step-son as well and it is a good thing if he does. The bond will not be the same one the child has with the father who was their at birth, that is true, but if the bio-dad is not available, the step-dad may be the one who nurtures him very early in life. I just hope that my ex's new partner learns to get on with my son. I don't think he has children of his own. Our boy told me: ... mum was shouting "Get up to your room you obnoxious brat" then XXX lifted me up by the neck shaking me and digging his long nails in. He shouted "You will do as you are told". The veins in his nose went purple and bulged up even more than usual... I've never met the guy, am happy she has found someone, but shudder at the thought of him being the main male influence in my son's life. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Fathers and Children
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:37:11 +1300, "ChrisScaife"
wrote: "toto" wrote in message .. . ..... I think it is a very balanced article about how children need a father in their lives who does care for them in a very different way from the way a mother does. Sadly this difference can result in confict between the parents. For instance, the research confirms the male tendency to stimulate the child more. The mother may see this as inappropriate but somehow they must accomodate the differences. On this forum it was mentioned how the lack of adult time together could contribute to marital breakdown. Certainly if parents start criticising the the way the other handles the children in their presence because they lack opportunity to do it away from them, discord will escalate. It happens, but I don't think this is the case in most marriages. Parenting does need to be a mutual undertaking and there are times when overstimulating a child is not a good thing, but that should be discussed without the children present. Also the father needs to point out that children need physical and stimulating play if the mom doesn't understand that. Often it's a matter of timing though. It's not a good idea to do this right before bedtime, yet that may be the only time the dad has if he works long hours. It's hard, but compromises need to be worked out so that the child calms down at bedtime, but gets the time and play s/he needs with dad. I was glad to see that the father's instinctive biological drive to nurture the child (and care for it's mum) was well acknowledged in this article. Me too. This is something we all really know, and something the substitute or step father will not have, no matter how we rationalise it. You can't change your emotions with logic. We are talking about something that has evolved with us from humble origins in the primordial slime. Part of the "selfish gene" and essential to survival of our species. No -ism or doctrine can change it. IOW it is the way the Lord created us! Well, I would not bring religion into it, No may be better not to ;-) but for many, religion sets the moral and social code by which they raise their kids. It is my impression that religions more or less advocate that one should not have children ouside of marriage. It seems to me that one can reach the same conclusion based simply on the fact that evolution principles will have moulded are instincts and desires to strive for just such an enduring family bond. You are confusing social darwinism with evolution. Society and marriage are human inventions and bonds that work can and are forged outside of marriage. The piece of paper given by the church or the state is not the important bond. The bond is emotional and practical when you have a child. Where there is only sexual attraction the parental bond with children will probably not be so good. The children should be given access to both biological parents and those who are not will often seek out the other parent in later life, perhaps they sensed all along that there was something missing ?! What makes you believe that sexual attraction is the only thing that bonds unmarried couples? It isn't. Unmarried couples can have what used to be called a common law marriage because they are essentially a family despite the lack of state sanctions. ...to nurture children is universal. If we look to species that are close to us in evolutionary terms e.g. primates, we see there is an intollerance to male rivals. This is the "selfish gene" principle ensuring it's own procreation rather than expending energy raising rival genes. I think female rivalry is similar. Subconsciously our primitive animal instincts lurk just beneath the thin veneer of civilisation and rationalisation that masks it. to determine paternity prior to DNA testing. Men had to accept that the child was theirs on faith (and there was a time when men and women did not even know the connection of sex to childbirth, but I imagine even then that men protected and nurtured the children of the tribe). I think, most of our emotions, including love, stem from our instincts. Men are instinctively posessive about the women they love and driven to fend off rival suitors. I'm sorry, but I don't think that is *love.* Love involves trusting your partner to keep her commitments without the necessity of fending off rival suitors. Your wife is not a thing you possess, but a person who has made the commitment to you. While certainly there are untrustworthy partners of both sexes, it is not a very good thing to assume this. Jealousy and possessiveness are not a necessary or sufficient part of love. The paternal bond may be innate in our species. It certainly is in others. Depends on the species. It's that selfish gene again, telling us to nurture our own offspring and not someone else's. Except that until DNA testing, a man had to take the fact that the child was his on faith As someone else pointed out, in other societies, all men protect the children of the tribe because they don't see that bio-relationship as primary even today. Civilisation may have achieved great intellectual works, but when it comes to reproduction we are fundamentally still animals! Yes, but humans are more akin to the Bonobos who use sex for many different purposes. We don't use sex solely for reproduction and that confuses things especially when you factor in religious beliefs. There have also been cases where babies were swapped by mistake at birth and so they grew up with neither of their biological parents. There are cases where people adopt also. Do you really think that the adoptive parents don't bond with the child. It is important for these children to eventually find out what their bio-families are like for lots of reasons, but that doesn't mean they will think of their adoptive parents as less important and it certainly does not mean that those parents didn't love them as real parents. Perhaps it is sufficient for the parent to believe that the child is theirs. OTOH do you think sometimes these parents might have wondered ? Can we sense these things without understanding why ? LOL. I really don't think we do. I know plenty of bio-children who *wonder* whether they are the real children of their parents or who fantasize about ideal parents who will take them away from these parents when they are angry at the parent. Sometimes it happens that a child is right about it, but mostly, I think that it's a coincidence if they think it and it happens to be true. I also think that a step-father having the drive to nurture his own children can still bond to the step-son as well and it is a good thing if he does. The bond will not be the same one the child has with the father who was their at birth, that is true, but if the bio-dad is not available, the step-dad may be the one who nurtures him very early in life. I just hope that my ex's new partner learns to get on with my son. I don't think he has children of his own. I hope he manages, but what you say below does not sound very good. Our boy told me: ... mum was shouting "Get up to your room you obnoxious brat" First off, your ex-wife should not be calling your son a brat. Namecalling like this is emotionally abusive especially if it happens often. This can affect your son's self-esteem and I would be very worried about his well-being. then XXX lifted me up by the neck shaking me and digging his long nails in. He shouted "You will do as you are told". The veins in his nose went purple and bulged up even more than usual... Again if this is true, I am afraid that this man is not going to be a good dad, though he *might* learn with help if he really cares about your ex and her son. I've never met the guy, am happy she has found someone, but shudder at the thought of him being the main male influence in my son's life. Perhaps your son is exagerating to gain your sympathy. It's awfully hard to know at this distance and he loves you and wishes he was with you instead of mom and a new boyfriend. (Assuming they have not married yet?) You know the ideal way even when one of the parents remarries is for the bio-dad to be allowed not only visitation, but the time to emotionally parent. We have a good example of this in our school this year. Dad has remarried, but he and his new wife come to all the school functions for his son and his ex-wife and the new step-mom seem to get along very well. The boy has one half-sister now and will have another in a few months and the whole family does things together. We can see the happiness of this boy though he knows the arrangement is peculiar and won't necessarily talk about his step-mom to the other children. He's very likable and well-adjusted. His dad and step-mom live about an hour drive from him and see him whenever they wish. Unfortunalely, many parents let their bitterness at each other stop them from being involved in this way. Any woman who denies her child visitation with the dad is harming her child in so many ways I can't count them (barring abuse on the dad's part, which does happen). And the dad who walks away does because of acrimony at his wife does damage too. It's too bad so many children are hurting. In your situation, is there no remedy in terms of the courts. It must be very difficult because you live in different countries. It's really too bad that you are not living close to him so that you could see what is happening for yourself instead of guessing about it. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Fathers and Children
"Rauni" wrote in message ... The paternal bond may be innate in our species. It certainly is in others. It's that selfish gene again, telling us to nurture our own offspring and not someone else's. Actually that is not true. Even in the animal kingdom. Cats will nurse *any* kitten. It doesn't matter if the mother birthed them or not. Yes, that is the female cat who does that. I don't know much about cats, but think the males make little contribution. Their genetic survial strategy is to "sew their wild oats far and wide". This works well for species in which the young require a lot less nurturing. Domesticated species are generally not a good example since their behaviour will have been influenced by their association with people. Staying with cats though, male lions are highly teritorial and do not tollerate any other males near their pride. Their selfish gene is so strong that when a rival male defeats the previous one he is liable to kill existing cubs to reduce competition for his own offspring! And in more "primitive" culture it is not the bio father who raises a woman's children but her brother. In some cultures the uncle is far more influential and important that the bio dad. There may be such cultures, but are they any less artificial than ours ? One might even ask why have they remained "primitive" ;-) There is actually a book titled "The selfish Gene" by a proper authority on the subject and they do it much more justice than I can... which is probably why I have been convinced of it's correctness. Another well known book on our animal selves is "the naked ape" by Desmond Morris. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Fathers and Children
"toto" wrote in message ... On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:37:11 +1300, "ChrisScaife" Society and marriage are human inventions and bonds that work can and are forged outside of marriage. The piece of paper given by the church or the state is not the important bond. The bond is emotional and practical when you have a child. I totally agree, it is the existence of the bond between the partners that counts, and not the piece of paper. I think the latter is only an attempt to formalise and affirm the existence of the bond... perhaps to communicate to suitors of either gender that intrusion will not be appreciated by either party. Where there is only sexual attraction the parental bond with children will probably not be so good. The children should be given access to both biological parents and those who are not will often seek out the other parent in later life, perhaps they sensed all along that there was something missing ?! What makes you believe that sexual attraction is the only thing that bonds unmarried couples? It isn't. Unmarried couples can have what used to be called a common law marriage because they are essentially a family despite the lack of state sanctions. I agree, the state of marriage is artificial. The enduring love between a woman and a man exists equally well in it's absence. I didn't mean to imply that without it only an ephemeral sexual attraction exists. What I meant was that the conditions for raising children are not good in cases where only the sexual attraction exists. ... but I suppose that is pretty well universally accepted and didn't actualy need to be said. I think, most of our emotions, including love, stem from our instincts. Men are instinctively posessive about the women they love and driven to fend off rival suitors. I'm sorry, but I don't think that is *love.* Love involves trusting your partner to keep her commitments without the necessity of fending off rival suitors. Your wife is not a thing you possess, but a person who has made the commitment to you. While certainly there are untrustworthy partners of both sexes, it is not a very good thing to assume this. Jealousy and possessiveness are not a necessary or sufficient part of love. That is also true, but if I didn't love my partner, would I still experience jealousy when she has relationships with others? The answer is no, because I don't feel any now that I no longer love my her. The Jealousy and wish to exclude rivals are but two symptoms of the love they stem from. Male posessiveness is not about having, or owning the person. It is about owning their trust and loyalty. Women have that just as much as men. Either gender may feel outrage and betrayal when it is broken by the other partner. The feminist attempt to make a sexist issue about it is false, hypocritical and psychologically damaging. Love, being an emotion that defies reason I see as a manifestation of our animal instinct which is far more complicated than we are willing to admit. Humans are not the only species who form enduring "love" bonds between couples. Is the love that say swans feel for each other that different ? Who can say ? The paternal bond may be innate in our species. It certainly is in others. Depends on the species. It depends on whether it is of any value to the survival of the species. Considering the amount of nurturing that is required to raise a chid into adult hood, chances are that a very strong bond that will last this long would be likely. IMHO also strongy in evidence in our society. The falasy would be to deny it, but the article you cited does not. It confirms it :-) Social Darwinism and Religion may come from very different perspectives but perhaps they draw the same conclusions. Except that until DNA testing, a man had to take the fact that the child was his on faith As someone else pointed out, in other societies, all men protect the children of the tribe because they don't see that bio-relationship as primary even today. Civilisation may have achieved great intellectual works, but when it comes to reproduction we are fundamentally still animals! Yes, but humans are more akin to the Bonobos who use sex for many different purposes. We don't use sex solely for reproduction and that confuses things especially when you factor in religious beliefs. Sorry I don't know about Bonobos (?!) I have read research into Gorillas and Chimpansees: Tere is an alfa-mae in the tribe who guards his female(s) from rival males until such time as one of the youngr ones takes his place. The subordinate males may well attempt to procreate without the alfa male knowing.. It would ofcourse be a mistake to say that because monkeys act this way it must be applicable to us too. There are cases where people adopt also. Do you really think that the adoptive parents don't bond with the child. ... Point taken. I also think that a step-father having the drive to nurture his own children can still bond to the step-son as well and it is a good thing if he does. The bond will not be the same one the child has with the father who was their at birth, that is true, but if the bio-dad is not available, the step-dad may be the one who nurtures him very early in life. I just hope that my ex's new partner learns to get on with my son. I don't think he has children of his own. I hope he manages, but what you say below does not sound very good. Our boy told me: ... mum was shouting "Get up to your room you obnoxious brat" First off, your ex-wife should not be calling your son a brat. Namecalling like this is emotionally abusive especially if it happens often. This can affect your son's self-esteem and I would be very worried about his well-being. I am. When I last saw him he was very subdued and insecure. then XXX lifted me up by the neck shaking me and digging his long nails in. He shouted "You will do as you are told". The veins in his nose went purple and bulged up even more than usual... Again if this is true, I am afraid that this man is not going to be a good dad, though he *might* learn with help if he really cares about your ex and her son. I think to him my son is a hinderance. I know other people who view their new partner's children as competition for their attention. I am thinking also of someone who would complain "he just wants to spends all his weekends with his children and has no time for me". I've never met the guy, am happy she has found someone, but shudder at the thought of him being the main male influence in my son's life. Perhaps your son is exagerating to gain your sympathy. It's awfully hard to know at this distance and he loves you and wishes he was with you instead of mom and a new boyfriend. One has to read the situation. This was only hours after my ex had phoned me to say "How dare you come back here to f***up my son's life..." I have no idea what the problem was because I was unable to get a word in... and hung up. Judging by the boys uncontrolled sobbing and the muffled shouts to open the door and return her mobile phone I think it was probably not far from the truth. Children do try to play one off against the other but my suspicion is that this is a symptom of a genuine cry for help. You know the ideal way even when one of the parents remarries is for the bio-dad to be allowed not only visitation, but the time to emotionally parent. We have a good example of this in our school this year. Dad has remarried, but he and his new wife come to all the school functions for his son and his ex-wife and the new step-mom seem to get along very well. The boy has one half-sister now and will have another in a few months and the whole family does things together. We can see the happiness of this boy though he knows the arrangement is peculiar and won't necessarily talk about his step-mom to the other children. He's very likable and well-adjusted. His dad and step-mom live about an hour drive from him and see him whenever they wish. I think you are right that the ideal situation is for the second relationships to also provide a good home for the step children as long as they then don't say the child has no use for the other parent, but tht sadly also happens. Unfortunalely, many parents let their bitterness at each other stop them from being involved in this way. Any woman who denies her child visitation with the dad is harming her child in so many ways I can't count them (barring abuse on the dad's part, which does happen). And the dad who walks away does because of acrimony at his wife does damage too. It's too bad so many children are hurting. In your situation, is there no remedy in terms of the courts. It must be very difficult because you live in different countries. It's really too bad that you are not living close to him so that you could see what is happening for yourself instead of guessing about it. That had been my intention and I tried returning there to live but it was a nightmare. I had an order saying I could pick my son up from school on certain days. Last time I tried I was treated to a torrent of verbal abuse right there in the play ground infront of all the kids and parents and when I didn't leave she switched to being distressed and seeking sympathy with the head teacher. In the end I did get to spend that afternoon with my son, but it was not to be repeated. 4 years of ever growing conflict was more than enough. In the absence of a will to cooperate, lawyers and the courts are a waste of time and money. and if there is a willingness, then you probably don't really need them either. Thanks for caring though :-) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Fathers and Children
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:04:26 +1300, "ChrisScaife"
wrote: Either gender may feel outrage and betrayal when it is broken by the other partner. Agreed. But, when you trust before the betrayal, you don't need to be jealous of the wife's friendships with other men. I have always had many male friends, but I would never betray my husband with them, they are not rival suitors. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Fathers and Children
This is very interesting food for thought in explaining our own social
behaviour and attitudes towards gender roles in child raising. You are evidently well informed on the subject. In these polygamous situations I suppose bio-mother or bio-father has little relevance and all the children are cared for collectively without them having any specific mummy or daddy. My instinct tells me that a human child will want to have his/her very own parents and the real parents will want to take responsibility for that child in preference to other children. It is illustrated by a biblical story about King Solomon deciding which of two mothers was the real one by declaring they would give half of the child to each . (You don't have to be religious to appreciate it.) In Nazi Germany they experimented with collective raising of the next Hitler Yugend generation. The unanimous verdict is that it was inhuman and unsuitable for our species. Finding foster parents is always preferable to growing up in an orphanage. Just wondering, with a high percentage of single mothers and apparent errosion of paternal role, are we becoming more like cats ? IMHO there is no justification for shifting residency of the children from broken homes to the mother in preference to the father and it is a femist falacy that this is in their interest. I think if they could make a male contraceptive pill it would solve a lot of problems. The threat of a paternity suit to reluctant fathers might be sufficient encouragement for them to take it. Leaving this responsibility entirely to the woman OTOH is a bad thing in more than one way. It also carries with it the danger that a woman can deliberately become pregnant to get a council house and financial security without commitment. With a mother who views her child as a means to an end and without a dad, such children are unfortunate indeed. Are we getting to deep into ethics for this NG ? "Rauni" wrote in message ... On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:50:19 +1300, "ChrisScaife" wrote: "Rauni" wrote in message .. . The paternal bond may be innate in our species. It certainly is in others. It's that selfish gene again, telling us to nurture our own offspring and not someone else's. Actually that is not true. Even in the animal kingdom. Cats will nurse *any* kitten. It doesn't matter if the mother birthed them or not. Yes, that is the female cat who does that. I don't know much about cats, but think the males make little contribution. Their genetic survial strategy is to "sew their wild oats far and wide". This works well for species in which the young require a lot less nurturing. Domesticated species are generally not a good example since their behaviour will have been influenced by their association with people. Staying with cats though, male lions are highly teritorial and do not tollerate any other males near their pride. Their selfish gene is so strong that when a rival male defeats the previous one he is liable to kill existing cubs to reduce competition for his own offspring! That is pretty much the same with domesticated Cats. In fact Domesticated Cats behavior is very much like a lion pride. Perhaps comparison to a wolf pack would be more in order. Cubs cannot maintain their body heat for their first three weeks of life, so their mother must stay with them in the den the whole time to keep them warm with her own body heat. This is why giving birth in a den tucked away from the elements is so important. Having a mate is also essential for a nursing mother wolf. She cannot leave the den to hunt or her cubs may chill and die of hypothermia. So she is dependent for food on her mate and any other adult wolves in the pack. She stands little chance of raising her cubs alone should her mate die and there are no other pack helpers. Wolves take great care of their cubs. Both parents share in the task of raising them. And their adult offspring who are still with the pack, the cubs' brothers and sisters, are devoted to the cubs, taking as much care of them as their parents do. All the wolves bring the cubs food from the hunt, play with them, guard them from danger and generally tend to them. When the cubs grow up they, too, may help care for the next generation their parents bear. If you do a little research in the animal world you will find that monogamous species, the males will help provision (feed) and carry the young. Biologists explain this as an investment in the male's own offspring... in monogamous relationships there is "paternity certainty." In most polygamous primate species the fathers of individual offspring are unknown, and males play little role in raising young, other than general group defense. This is interesting about savanna baboons "Long term studies have disclosed what may be pair bonds between male and female savanna baboons. Although estrous females tend to be sexually receptive to dominant males, especially macho male immigrants, those that associate with females regularly at other times enjoy privileged status It turns out that each female has I to 3 favorite males she roosts with at night, social grooms with, and stays near while foraging. When she comes into estrus, one or more of these favorites usually becomes her consort. So it pays males to cultivate social bonds with females, particularly after transferring to a new troop to improve dominance status and reproductive success. It is a win win arrangement, as associated males play godfather roles to the females' offspring, whether the real father or not. Holding, carrying, grooming, and food sharing involving adult males and infants occur almost exclusively with socially bonded males. Godfathers are quick to come to the aid of juveniles bullied by other troop members and also provide protection for their mothers. Low ranking females benefit most, as dominant females, attracted like all baboons to black infants, often handle subordinates' babies regardless of the mothers' or the infants' distress. The proximity of a big male inhibits them." And in more "primitive" culture it is not the bio father who raises a woman's children but her brother. In some cultures the uncle is far more influential and important that the bio dad. There may be such cultures, but are they any less artificial than ours ? One might even ask why have they remained "primitive" ;-) Of course not just less technological. You might want to look up matrilineal cultures. There is actually a book titled "The selfish Gene" by a proper authority on the subject and they do it much more justice than I can... which is probably why I have been convinced of it's correctness. Another well known book on our animal selves is "the naked ape" by Desmond Morris. "The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple." -- Oscar Wilde |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Fathers and Children
"toto" wrote in message ... On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:04:26 +1300, "ChrisScaife" wrote: Either gender may feel outrage and betrayal when it is broken by the other partner. Agreed. But, when you trust before the betrayal, you don't need to be jealous of the wife's friendships with other men. I have always had many male friends, but I would never betray my husband with them, they are not rival suitors. 100% with you :-) Being too tolerant can also send the wrong message. If say your partner made a habit of flirting you might think he didn't care about you and say nothing thus sending the message "Since you don't care I don't either". Both parties could end up feeling hurt (although IMHO the one doing the flirting deserves it). It would probably still be better to tell him/her how bad it makes you feel. If they still do it or even defend their right to as "you don't own me" then there may be irreconcilable differences in expectations of the relationship. I think this is where the marriage certificate helps. It really is an unambiguous mutual promiss. It's why many people can can cohabit but see marriage as necessary before having children. If flirting or promiscuity are to persist beyond matrimony both parties would have had to seriously agree! I know it has been done and the couples are probably still happily married. It's not something everyone could live with. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mom goes AWOL from Iraq - says children need her at home | John Stone | General | 179 | November 19th 03 12:08 AM |
How much privacy do you give them? | Wendy | General | 103 | November 18th 03 01:14 AM |
Every Fathers Nightmare - David HAIRLIP Moore | Rich | General | 0 | August 25th 03 05:02 PM |