Lessons to teach men with absent fathers

[chuckman1]

Growing up as a guy whose Dad was always in jail there were things I didn't learn. Sure I had a great mother, but there's only so much a woman can tell you about certain subjects. The lack of fatherhood has led at least thousands of young men to lives of crime and violence. I am doing what I can to stay on the right path in life.
(This topic is also for people with bad dads, step-dads, etc.)

The purpose of this topic is for two things.
1.Share any knowledge you feel men without a proper father figure need to know.
2. If you had a similar situation what do you wish you had been taught? What can you teach others now that you have grown up?

 

[tippy2k2]

I had a "Disney Land Dad" (as my Mum liked to call him) where I would go over to his house every two weeks and do nothing but fun stuff because parenting is hard.

Luckily, my Mum was incredibly capable and handled it like a champ. All the "Dad" stuff (like respecting women, don't hit unless you are forced to defend yourself, sportsmanship, how to wrestle a live grizzly bear; the usual) were handled by her.

Honestly, the only thing that she didn't really handle that would have been VERY nice to have the first time was how to (properly) shave. My poor...poor face

EDIT: Well this thread took one hell of a unexpected turn...

 

[Lilani]

If you feel this is out of line and not constructive toward your topic just say the word and I'll delete this, but there's something about this whole "absent father" thing that I don't quite understand.

I know that there are more children in the world without fathers than without mothers. However, there seems to be an assumption that there's a direct cause-and-effect relationship between not having a father and being more likely to commit crime. My question is, is lacking a father REALLY the deciding factor here? Because for children who lack a father, or any parent at all, there are generally a lot of other things going on. Children of single parents are typically poorer and have fewer opportunities for enrichment or higher education. They're pressured to enter the workforce sooner to help out with finances. They don't get away from home as often and typically don't have a lot of enriching free-time. They don't get to participate in as many extracurricular activities at school. The parent they do have is more likely to have some kind of problem like addiction or depression.

On top of that, the concern is always for boys lacking a father figure. There's never concern for a girl who lacks a father figure. Why is that? If the father figure is somehow the authority which compels children to stay on the straight and narrow, why is this only the case for boys? I understand single dads are much rarer than single mothers, but though I've heard a thousand times how fathers are the force which prevent boys from becoming criminals, I've never heard a correlation drawn between girls and their mothers that has such a profound effect.

I guess what I'm asking is, is the lack of a father figure really what causes boys to become criminals, or is it the other circumstances which surround single parents? Poverty is a well-known and documented predictor of crime, and single parents are often poor. Is there truly a correlation between a lack of a father figure and crime at all socio-economic levels? The reason I ask is that the cynical side of me often sees this "boys need father figures so they don't become criminals" argument trotted out by social conservatives who are trying to hammer home the importance of a nuclear family to discredit nontraditional or single-parent families, and to downplay the effect poverty has on crime.

 

[chuckman1]

snip

Women without fathers is also definitely a problem. But men without fathers sometimes join gangs and kill each other. Women without fathers seem to have trouble picking the right man. Society focuses on drama and young men throwing their lives away for fast cash and killing each other seems more dramatic. Some women get in to similar situations, but the vast majority of murders are committed by men and most gangsters are men. I would say that the absence of a father is seen to go hand in hand with poverty. It's not always the case, but a family with one breadwinner is gonna have a much harder time staying afloat.

The problem of women without fathers, and all sorts of absent parents should be discussed maybe you should make a topic about it.

I am not sure if the no father is the deciding factor, but it is a big factor culturally. Gangs often run by the basis of respecting your elders (more so if they've done more dirt) and very few gang members have healthy relationships with both of their biological parents.

There are more problems than gang violence that affect men without fathers. Just like there's more issues that affect women with no dad than always dating the bad boy.

But I would say there is a direct correlation in the social construct of gangs and absentee fathers.

In extreme situations with the lack of a dad, men can turn to hyped up illegal forms of masculinity. Violence=real man.
In women with horrible family lives, they may turn to illegal forms of femininity. Sex appeal=real woman. So they go prostitute in the street. (I think sex work should be legal). But in the current form these women have a life expectancy of like 5 years as a prostitute and are victims of men constantly.
I may be ooverthinking this but it seems as if men with no father are more likely to create a life of crime. Often because men around them are doing it.
While women who turn to a life of crime seem more often, to have had a bad father or mother.

 

[Lilani]

Women without fathers is also definitely a problem. But men without fathers sometimes join gangs and kill each other. Women without fathers seem to have trouble picking the right man. Society focuses on drama and young men throwing their lives away for fast cash and killing each other seems more dramatic. Some women get in to similar situations, but the vast majority of murders are committed by men and most gangsters are men. I would say that the absence of a father is seen to go hand in hand with poverty. It's not always the case, but a family with one breadwinner is gonna have a much harder time staying afloat.

But again, are family dynamics really the deciding factor of delinquency, or is it poverty and the culture one is raised around? This is a major assumption about our society which I haven't yet seen proven with statistics or case studies. And it's an assumption which is used to argue against everything from welfare to birth control, so it's something we should make sure is the truth before spreading further.

The problem of women without fathers, and all sorts of absent parents should be discussed maybe you should make a topic about it.

I am not sure if the no father is the deciding factor, but it is a big factor culturally. Gangs often run by the basis of respecting your elders (more so if they've done more dirt) and very few gang members have healthy relationships with both of their biological parents.

It's interesting that you say gangs often have a hierarchy of respecting elders while also saying that few gang members have healthy relationships with their biological parents--who would, in fact, be their elders. That seems like a contradiction to me: if someone has a bad relationship with their parents, why would they be any more predisposed to submit to any other system which requires they respect someone simply on the basis that they are their "elder?" Unless the logic is the gang is replacing the parent figure, however I feel like a gang is more like a parentless brotherhood or fraternity than a parent-child family group.

There are more problems than gang violence that affect men without fathers. Just like there's more issues that affect women with no dad than always dating the bad boy.

Again, that's a stereotype. Are girls with bad relationships with their fathers ACTUALLY more likely to be in abusive relationships than girls on good terms with their fathers? Is that a more deciding factor over socio-economic standing or the culture in which they live?

But I would say there is a direct correlation in the social construct of gangs and absentee fathers.

In extreme situations with the lack of a dad, men can turn to hyped up illegal forms of masculinity. Violence=real man.
In women with horrible family lives, they may turn to illegal forms of femininity. Sex appeal=real woman. So they go prostitute in the street. (I think sex work should be legal). But in the current form these women have a life expectancy of like 5 years as a prostitute and are victims of men constantly.
I may be ooverthinking this but it seems as if men with no father are more likely to create a life of crime. Often because men around them are doing it.
While women who turn to a life of crime seem more often, to have had a bad father or mother.

I would need statistics to be convinced of that. Again, the reason I don't like this assumption is because it's often used as an argument against support for single families, and it drastically simplifies the complicated issue of single parenthood, monogamy, and having children out of wedlock. I'm not trying to say that fathers aren't important, however this such an assumed fact in our society and I've seen so little hard evidence to back it up I can't help but feel skeptical.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'm led to believe that boys that grow up without father are also statistically more likely to win the Victoria Cross.

Personally, I don't see why having a father matters, so long as there is a stable household with time for the kids. If you've got uncles, or two mothers, or one mother that isn't working all the time. I think there is too much concern over traditional families.

 

[Vault101]

snip

yeah this whole obsession over "father figures" has always rubbed me the wrong way on some level, like boys need a MAN to show them how to be MEN cause they might turn into criminals or gay...it sort of indirectly condemns non traditional families...though interestingly I doubt many people would be all too worried about a male gay couples ability to raise a girl, but lesbains rasing a boy? a bit of hand wringing and concern I imagine.

basically I feel that sometimes its got a little mysogangy

HOWEVER...

I'm not an expert in the kind of forces with kids psychologically so I'm not going to outright deny there's "stuff" going on here, its just hard for me to understand, Thinking back I don't think I got my ideas about gender from my parents...they were just kinda there

[quote/]On top of that, the concern is always for boys lacking a father figure. There's never concern for a girl who lacks a father figure. [/quote]
oh there is...thats where sluts come from, if young girls don't have a patriarchal figure to [strike/]fit on the chastity belt,[/S] oversee their relationships they turn into sluts!

....*blegh*

 

[Phasmal]

The one thing I would tell men (and women) growing up without a father is: Don't listen to people who say you will turn out a certain way because you don't have a dad.

Having a dad isn't a magical key to your life not fucking up, and not having one isn't an automatic curse the way some people would have you believe.

My parents got divorced when divorce was fairly common but not so common in my area and you would not believe the uninformed dribble that comes out of adults mouths when around a child with an absent father.
The stuff I was directly told (that my life would be fucked up forever and my relationship with men would never be healthy), and the things I indirectly heard (gonna end up with no job/on drugs/on the streets)- these things were all said by adults about a child. It's messed up.

Don't believe it for one second. You're not defined by whether or not your dad stuck around.

And for men-specific advice- you are not your dad. You don't have to repeat his mistakes.

 

[VanQ]

If you feel this is out of line and not constructive toward your topic just say the word and I'll delete this, but there's something about this whole "absent father" thing that I don't quite understand.

I know that there are more children in the world without fathers than without mothers. However, there seems to be an assumption that there's a direct cause-and-effect relationship between not having a father and being more likely to commit crime. My question is, is lacking a father REALLY the deciding factor here? Because for children who lack a father, or any parent at all, there are generally a lot of other things going on. Children of single parents are typically poorer and have fewer opportunities for enrichment or higher education. They're pressured to enter the workforce sooner to help out with finances. They don't get away from home as often and typically don't have a lot of enriching free-time. They don't get to participate in as many extracurricular activities at school. The parent they do have is more likely to have some kind of problem like addiction or depression.

On top of that, the concern is always for boys lacking a father figure. There's never concern for a girl who lacks a father figure. Why is that? If the father figure is somehow the authority which compels children to stay on the straight and narrow, why is this only the case for boys? I understand single dads are much rarer than single mothers, but though I've heard a thousand times how fathers are the force which prevent boys from becoming criminals, I've never heard a correlation drawn between girls and their mothers that has such a profound effect.

I guess what I'm asking is, is the lack of a father figure really what causes boys to become criminals, or is it the other circumstances which surround single parents? Poverty is a well-known and documented predictor of crime, and single parents are often poor. Is there truly a correlation between a lack of a father figure and crime at all socio-economic levels? The reason I ask is that the cynical side of me often sees this "boys need father figures so they don't become criminals" argument trotted out by social conservatives who are trying to hammer home the importance of a nuclear family to discredit nontraditional or single-parent families, and to downplay the effect poverty has on crime.

I'm no expert on this topic or parenting for that matter, but I remember reading that with the increase in fatherless children, there has also been an increase in violence among young girls as well. Of course, where I read this and if it was a viable scientific study I don't remember so take this with a grain of salt.

I grew up with a stable mother and father myself, but my father was just as introverted as I am so I hardly spoke to him and he only really spoke to me to tell me how I was wasting my life on video games. Ironically, I am the only of 3/4 children over the age of 18 to actually move out and have a successful career. (My brother can't hold a job for his life and my sister turned to stripping to pay off debts). But that's beside the point.

I think you're on the right track about the fact that single mothers can't provide all the benefits of parenting alone. Money is a big issue, my parents paid for my education and for extra-curricular activities like after school sports to keep me occupied. Until I was old enough to get a job, they bought me a PS1 and games so when I couldn't go out for fun I could have fun indoors as well. Basically, I always had something to keep my mind off things like crimes or drugs or all those kinds of bad things.

And in saying that, I think you can draw a somewhat direct correlation between crime and having a single parent, not necessarily not having a father figure specifically. It's worth noting that sharing the responsibilities as a parent and having two mentors can only benefit the children involved and as such this is why I find the ever increasing divorce rate and slow abolishment of the nuclear family to be a distressing thought. It's not to say that single parents can't raise perfectly healthy, happy children - they can - it's just that it's significantly more difficult to do so with only one mentor and only one income.

I would never have gone to my mother when I was having girl troubles for example, but my dad would always tell me "she says this but really means this" and I never would have gotten those answers from my mother. My mother was always there for me when I was depressed or confused as well, as my dad would have just told me to "harden up" which isn't always the best answer. These roles aren't always the same between different sets of parents either, different people different parents and all that, but you'll get more good having two people be there for you than one.

 

[Phasmal]

It's worth noting that sharing the responsibilities as a parent and having two mentors can only benefit the children involved and as such this is why I find the ever increasing divorce rate and slow abolishment of the nuclear family to be a distressing thought. It's not to say that single parents can't raise perfectly healthy, happy children - they can - it's just that it's significantly more difficult to do so with only one mentor and only one income.

Apologies if I appear to be nitpicking slightly, but you really needn't be distressed for many of us.
Divorce in some families is often the best thing that could have happened.

It's much better to have one stable parent than two unstable ones who hate each other, in my opinion.
`Staying together for the kids` is a terrible idea for all involved.

This is another thing I dislike (speaking more in general now), divorce is treated as some big tragedy when it isn't always, and in a way I feel that encourages people to stay in toxic marriages for longer than they should.

 

[VanQ]

It's worth noting that sharing the responsibilities as a parent and having two mentors can only benefit the children involved and as such this is why I find the ever increasing divorce rate and slow abolishment of the nuclear family to be a distressing thought. It's not to say that single parents can't raise perfectly healthy, happy children - they can - it's just that it's significantly more difficult to do so with only one mentor and only one income.

Apologies if I appear to be nitpicking slightly, but you really needn't be distressed for many of us.
Divorce in some families is often the best thing that could have happened.

It's much better to have one stable parent than two unstable ones who hate each other, in my opinion.
`Staying together for the kids` is a terrible idea for all involved.

This is another thing I dislike (speaking more in general now), divorce is treated as some big tragedy when it isn't always, and in a way I feel that encourages people to stay in toxic marriages for longer than they should.

Oh, to be clear, I'm not talking about divorce when two adults agree that it would be best to go their separate ways and to support their children in their own way thereafter. I'm talking about divorce when one of the two parents split and one side is milked of their resources through court order and the other uses that money to their own benefit or for the benefit of their new partner rather than the children. Or splits where one of the parents simply vanishes and is never a part of the child's life from that moment onwards.

I don't treat divorce itself as some tragedy, but rather if two irresponsible adults split and can't support their children from that moment on.

 

[Phasmal]

Oh, to be clear, I'm not talking about divorce when two adults agree that it would be best to go their separate ways and to support their children in their own way thereafter. I'm talking about divorce when one of the two parents split and one side is milked of their resources through court order and the other uses that money to their own benefit or for the benefit of their new partner rather than the children. Or splits where one of the parents simply vanishes and is never a part of the child's life from that moment onwards.

I don't treat divorce itself as some tragedy, but rather if two irresponsible adults split and can't support their children from that moment on.

That's a very specific type of divorce you're talking about there, so you can see why I misunderstood.

I don't know how it is in the country you live in, but here in the UK the government had to step in to help my family be supported because my father purposely pulled a Houdini in order to not pay any child support whatsoever. So it did mean money was always on the tight side, but it was still a healthier household without my parents being forced to play happy families.

 

[Lieju]

I'm led to believe that boys that grow up without father are also statistically more likely to win the Victoria Cross.

Personally, I don't see why having a father matters, so long as there is a stable household with time for the kids. If you've got uncles, or two mothers, or one mother that isn't working all the time. I think there is too much concern over traditional families.

Yeah, this one. I'm not really sure if there's something a boy has to specifically learn from a male authority figure? It would seem to me that if you need a man to tell you something like 'respect women', your society has a huge problem with misogyny and you need to address that...

Besides, from what I know of the 'traditional' families going back even few generations, dads didn't participate in raising the kids.

oh there is...thats where sluts come from, if young girls don't have a patriarchal figure to [strike/]fit on the chastity belt,[/S] oversee their relationships they turn into sluts!

....*blegh*

Or gay.
That's more of a matter of trying to find out what could have possibly gone wrong to make a kid gay... And relationships with parents are often pulled up as an explanation.

A gay boy grew up with a single mom? Didn't have a role model of a real man and took after his mom.
A gay boy grew up with a single dad? Obviously took the role of the woman in the family since it was missing a woman.

...*blegh*

 

[incendiary_sheep]

I'm not really qualified to comment on this thread, but weirdly, I had almost this exact conversation with my brother a couple of weeks ago, and I thought I'd share his observation, because I found it so interesting.

Our mother was widowed when we were young, and he can barely even remember our father. We are now middle-aged (urgh), and have kids, and we were feeling maudlin, so we were discussing what impact we thought having no dad had on us.

Mum had a good job, so we never had financial pressure. She was the 'handyman' even before dad died, so my brother (and I) learned how to fix a car and use powertools and all those stereotypical 'manly' things from her. So do you what he said he missed the most? The opportunity to learn about sport ? or perhaps more accurately, the opportunity to learn to love sport. Most of his male friends spend their free time going to matches or watching sport on TV. He's learned the rules by reading and watching, and he's 'adopted' a couple of teams, and he keeps an eye on the sports pages so he doesn't look like a complete sport ignoramus at work, but he can't really bring himself to care. He very much wishes he?d had a dad who watched sports with him when he was younger, if only so he could feel that he?s a genuine supporter of a team, rather than feeling like a fake.

I have to admit I've occasionally pretended to care about sporting events too, mainly to be sociable, but I have no problem with admitting I know next to nothing and care even less. That attitude would apparently make my brother a social pariah! I guess, being female, I can't really comprehend the role that sport has in male socialisation. But i do understand that my brother is trying really hard to ensure his son grows up with a love of sport ? and a couple of teams that he can claim to be a 'lifelong supporter' of!

 

[incendiary_sheep]

Oops...double post

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Well that went off-topic fast. Props to Sleekit though.

My parents split when I was about 4 or 5. I did see my Dad often though, but always 15 minutes drive from my mum's house, so I can separate the lessons each of them taught. Whether or not they're something mostly taught by a father figure or not, I'll leave for you to interpret.

Be smart. There are too many idiots in the world, you don't want to become one of them.
Don't carry around a weapon, because you'll probably use it.
Study hard and work hard.
Doing something with your hands, or something physical, is a lot more satisfying. It also feels more real.
The importance of good manners.

Nothing in particular that needs to come from a father-figure per se, but boys often look to their fathers for an example on how to treat women, so... If you never had a dad to show you this, or your dad was a shit, don't be a cock to women.

That's all I've got...

There's a sex joke in there somewhere, but I can't find it.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Be smart. There are too many idiots in the world, you don't want to become one of them.
Don't carry around a weapon, because you'll probably use it.
Study hard and work hard.
Doing something with your hands, or something physical, is a lot more satisfying. It also feels more real.
The importance of good manners.

Those all sound quite reasonable. Though, for the first, I'd add "Don't automatically assume you aren't one of them", because they'd be convinced that they aren't.

 

[Loonyyy]

I'm in complete agreement with Lilani. Especially the suggestion that children without parents might join gangs. You know, I might have joined a gang (Not really. Not the temperament, and I'm not thaaaat much of an asshole) if there were any within spitting distance of my house. There weren't. Those are their own problem. And when it's extended to gang structure, it's not like it's not filled with with antiquated macho masculine bullshit. And that's not fake, and it comes from buying into this stupid idea of gender and masculinity. That there's anything a man needs to be a real man, even if it's something positive, is misguided. And when elaborated on further, that turned into some deeply sexist, traditionalist stereotyping shit. So fuck that seven by seven different ways.

And I don't think there are that many things that men need that aren't, or at least, shouldn't be gender neutral, bar some hygiene etc. Being the best human you can be shouldn't rely on your gender. I was once given an illustrated version of "Desiderata" by Max Ehrman, and that was a fairly good place to start for me. People need good, caring, loving, supporting parents, and as stable a home as can be provided for them.

The one thing I would tell men (and women) growing up without a father is: Don't listen to people who say you will turn out a certain way because you don't have a dad.

Having a dad isn't a magical key to your life not fucking up, and not having one isn't an automatic curse the way some people would have you believe.

My parents got divorced when divorce was fairly common but not so common in my area and you would not believe the uninformed dribble that comes out of adults mouths when around a child with an absent father.
The stuff I was directly told (that my life would be fucked up forever and my relationship with men would never be healthy), and the things I indirectly heard (gonna end up with no job/on drugs/on the streets)- these things were all said by adults about a child. It's messed up.

Don't believe it for one second. You're not defined by whether or not your dad stuck around.

And for men-specific advice- you are not your dad. You don't have to repeat his mistakes.

And Phasmal smashes it out of the park. That's some of the best advice in the thread. Although I'd like to extend it further: You're not your parents. You're not even your family. You're whatever you want to be, so be the best fucking human that you can be!