I found the below information by Carol Sarler and thought it made good reading and might make some good discussion?
'It might be very nice indeed for a child to have a dad around the house — provided, naturally, that he's the proper kind: the devoted, sober, gentle giant much given to manly rites of passage. But nice is not the same as need and certainly not as “rights”; further, if the hands-on presence of a father were actually so imperative, our species would have died out in the primordial swamp.'
'Hunter-gatherers didn't sit around fashioning nappies out of hemp; they were off and away, garnering the means of survival — a function that, by the way, remains the most useful role for a father. Ask any single mother what she most misses about having a man and her answer will be a man-sized salary; it is the absence of that, rather than of the man himself, that makes children go off the rails.'
'Medieval men thundered off to war for years on end; feudal men (rich) ignored their children until they were adults, feudal men (poor) ignored them until they were fit to work a field.'
'What we now call the “traditional” role of a father is not, in fact, much older than post-Second World War when men, by and large, stopped killing each other and found better things to do, like spending time with their families and discovering that they liked it. By the Seventies they were well stuck in: attending childbirth classes, severing umbilical cords, reading at bedtimes and engaging in show-off man-to-boy bonding.'
'Again, jolly nice for the kids lucky enough to get full-beam attention. But to turn nice into necessary requires a denial of history as well as of geography — there are still many parts of the world where the bearing and raising of children is entirely the province of women — and, indeed, of nature itself: for every male swan, happy to embrace monogamy and even to squat on a clutch of spring eggs, there is a bull to inseminate a promiscuous dozen, unable to care less for the resulting progeny. Yet both species, rather like our own, seem to truck along quite nicely.'
'Professional estimates suggest that as many as one in twenty children may be living in blissful ignorance of their true paternity — an ignorance usually shared by the “father”, which, biologically, he isn't. Even if it were only as high as one in a hundred, that would still leave 600,000 of us running around not knowing who our real daddies are. Shall we, must we, all be told the truth? Or shall we keep it as a special treat for children born to pushy lesbians who have the effrontery to ask for the discretion that the rest of us take for granted?' ↓
|
|
| Name: cherisalorraine | Date: Feb 18th, 2008 3:58 PM |
| I think that children can be raised with or with out either parent. It is nice to see loving fathers embrace their new role as care giver but it doesn't always happen and the children are better off with an uninvolved hard case . On the same end some mothers just aren't good at nurturing and the children can be fine without that influence! ↑ |
| Name: Lizzi | Date: Feb 18th, 2008 8:02 PM |
| No children don't NEED fathers. Especially if the "father" is a worthless piece of crap. In a perfect world a mother and father both would be nice but a mother alone can parent by herself and the kids turn out to be just as good as if they had had BOTH parents raising them. I think it's mostly the mothers raising the kids anyway,even WITH a father in the picture. ↑ |
| Name: lynneings | Date: Feb 18th, 2008 8:03 PM |
| Name: bebe9281 | Date: Feb 18th, 2008 8:55 PM |
| Not if all they are going to do is bitch wabout what Mommy doesn't do right!!! LOL ↑ |
| Name: puakogirl | Date: Feb 18th, 2008 9:30 PM |
| I think it always depends on the situation. If parents are happy, then it's great for the child. But if parents are miserable, fighting, etc., of course the child would be better off with one parent in the house. MOST of the time, the mom is the primary care-giver but there are the instances where the dad stays at home, or has custody of the kids & does a great job. Again, just depends on the situation- whatever is best / most healthy for the child is the answer in my mind :) ↑ |
| Name: lindalu | Date: Feb 18th, 2008 10:49 PM |
| Its great if one can have the loving second half around for the child and sure it makes life easier from a financially stand point, but can a man offer any thing a child needs to sustain life? no. ↑ |
| Name: K-beth | Date: Feb 19th, 2008 12:03 AM |
| I have to say that children need a good male and female role modle. A good woman teaches her sons what kind of woman would be a good wife and mother and to teach her daughters how to be the good wife and mother. A good man teaches his daughters what a good husband and father is and to teach his sons how to be a good husband and father. ↑ |
| Name: momo | Date: Feb 19th, 2008 1:25 AM |
| I dont think children need fathers so much as they need postive male role models..like others have suggested..and vice versa..if a mother or father is not suitable to be in the picture then they should not be in the picture..you can always surround them with other postive people ↑ |
|
|
