Ian helped clean up last month, after the CCFA walk. He walked through the park, scouring the ground for wrappers and paper and popsicle sticks. He helped because we asked, but he often picks up trash while we’re walking and playing in parks. Sometimes he’s being considerate; often he just likes picking things off the ground.
By contrast, on the way home from work today I saw a young woman toss a soda can to the curb as she walked to work. There was a Big Gulp waiting for me in the front yard when I arrived home. Last week, a couple exited a McDonald’s parking lot and pulled in front of me, flattened ketchup packages flying from the passenger window. Yesterday two young men started playing catch with a discarded Gatorade bottle they found in the park, and left it lying in the grass when they’d finished.
Are these people kidding me? Woodsy’s, what, thirty-seven years old? Nearly forty years wearing that feathered cap, and people still think it’s acceptable to litter. I thought littering was one of those dimwit phases we all go through, like 4:20 references or Adam Sandler movies. Something we’ve all done despite knowing better, and no one does anything to stop us except roll their eyes because we’re not worth the effort.
Sure, a cartoon owl isn’t all that inspiring, but do you really need to be told not to litter? It’s about good stewardship, sure. But the further you get from the age of five, the less it’s about the environment and the more it’s about you simply being stupid.
My four-year-old son, who can spell his name and little else, knows enough to throw his trash away. He enjoys helping me take the garbage out, and emptying the recycling bin. He may litter the house with half-finished drawings and bits of paper, but we’re the only ones who have to live with it, and only until we tell him to pick it up.
Give a hoot, stop acting like a moron and put your trash in a can, cupholder, or even your pocket. Take your pick. I don’t care. I’m trying to keep this place clean for my son.
Tony raises a very good point: why allow my son to watch Mr. Bean, when he can’t even watch Dora the Explorer?
The short answer: because Dora hurts my brain.
But Tony’s concern is that, from time to time, for surprisingly various reasons, Mr. Bean’s antics leave him quite nude. After falling from a diving board, Mr. Bean emerges from the water only to find his swimming suit floating several feet away. A little girl runs away with them, and—after ensuing hilarity—Mr. Bean finds himself starkers in front of a group of shocked and appalled women. And my hand doesn’t even twitch toward Ian’s eyes.
Am I a hypocrite? Well, yes. But that’s beside the point.
The reason Kelly and I don’t have a problem with Ian seeing the lighter side of Mr. Bean is because he’s simply naked. And? So are we all, from time to time. Ian’s seen me naked, his mother naked, and he’s been naked in public more than he’d like me to say.
The nudity of Mr. Bean isn’t lewd or lascivious. It’s not intended to thrill or tempt or earn a stricter rating from the MPAA. It’s the furthest from sex as nude can be, which is where nudity usually is. The point of Mr. Bean’s nudity isn’t that he’s naked, but the situation in which he finds himself.
I’ve no problem with Mr. Bean as I’ve no problem with breastfeeding mothers, or the Bathers, or little ones running naked through the yard. Usually, naked is naked, and we move on. Adam and Eve danced through Eden, naked as God made them, and even He didn’t raise an eyebrow.
It’s an important distinction for our children to learn, I think. I’m not about to join a nudist colony, and I don’t go out of my way to find naked statues to show my son. Modesty is important, too. But I feel our shame is misplaced in this country. We fill our shelves with Bratz and have convinced girls that a bare midriff is the way to a boy’s heart, yet people glare at the father changing his son’s diaper in the park.
Volkswagen has confirmed what I’ve always suspected. For men, life is nothing more than a downward spiral from strip clubs and casual sex into the squalid depths of matrimony and fatherhood.
But it’s all worth it if you have a cool car.
The consumer within me loves the concept; I can’t deny that it’s a clever ad. I’d probably appreciate it more if it weren’t for VW’s parting message: ‘Finally, it’s great to be a dad.’ Finally. At long last. After years of languishing under the yolk yoke of responsibility and compassion and unconditional love, we shall have our prize.
The father within me is livid at the implication that family isn’t its own reward.
Everyone knows about the Sydney Opera House. Some people vaguely recall Yahoo Serious. But did you know that Australia has a three-day Fatherhood Festival? This past summer’s was the third, and featured locally produced short films about fathers and families.
Someone should’ve done more research, because, apparently, they’re wasting their time.
‘…psychologists have recently set out to challenge the idea that fatherless boys are bound to fail as men as a fallacy rooted in antiquated and idealized notions of family. Parental gender, they say, is irrelevant. Rather, all kids need is at least one parent who is a responsible, loving and steady caregiver.
…In a 1999 issue of the journal American Psychologist, Louise Silverstein and Carl Auerbach of Yeshiva University in New York published a study called “Deconstructing the Essential Father,” in which they concluded…that the available data “do not support the idea that fathers make a unique and essential contribution[emphasis added] to child development.”
Earlier this year, Peggy Drexler, a Cornell University psychology professor, took this position one step further in her book Raising Boys Without Men. She asserted that, all things being equal, boys often fare better without a male influence in the home.’
Read more → Macleans.ca
There are times in everyone’s life when we rediscover what it means for something to be ‘essential’. College. The year after graduation. The first year of marriage. We discover what we need, and what we can do without. We learn to compromise, and we learn to get by.
I certainly like to think that I play an essential role in my son’s life. The ten million single-mother households in America, however, prove otherwise. As a father, I am not essential. And I thank God for that. If I were gone today, Ian could grow up to be a content, well-adjusted young man. Given his wonderful mother, family, and friends, I’m fairly certain he would. If parents were ‘essential’, our children would have a very hard time of it.
But is being inessential the same as being irrelevant? Perhaps, if we measure fatherhood by the standards of Ms. Drexler:
‘”The boys in my study were not sissies or mama’s boys,” she says. “…They were thoughtful communicators who were caring and sensitive, but they were just as willing to engage in boyish activities like skateboarding and roughhousing.”‘
Motherhood is care and sensitivity. Fatherhood is skateboarding and roughhousing. If these are the extent of a man’s role as father, why do we care when he leaves? If we reduce fatherhood to skinned knees and hand-eye coordination, why are we surprised when he does?
Fathers are not essential, but we are unique. Our role is significant and distinct, and is more than X and Y. If it weren’t, this blog wouldn’t exist. Children can survive without their fathers. They can get by. But no parent wants their child merely to get by.
I think what bothers me most is that the goal of Peggy Drexler and her ilk seems not to be reassuring single mothers that their children will be healthy, but to convince the rest of us that fathers are redundant and, in some cases, malignant.
Carol Gilligan, the ‘gender scholar’ featured prominantly on Ms. Drexler’s website, asserts in her book The Birth of Pleasure that ‘a child’s inborn ability to love freely and live authentically gets thoroughly squelched by patriarchal structures.’
Tell that to my son the next time he gives you a hug.
If, as Ms. Drexler claims, ‘parenting is not anchored to gender’ and ‘not male or female’, if this assertion is the heart of her study, then why isn’t her book called Raising Boys Without Parents?
One of the best advantages of digital photography is that its permanence is subject to your whims. Don’t like the lighting? Delete. Out of focus? Delete. Wife doesn’t think it’s funny? Delete. It’s a tribute to instant gratification.
Quality digital cameras have become so easy to use, and so affordable, that anyone can take professional-quality (as far as my parents know) pictures of his son eating apples. Many cameras even have filters that can add sepia tone, soft glow (à la Glamour Shots), or take pictures in black and white.
You, too, can be Annie Leibovitz!
HP knows its customers, and has taken us one step closer to becoming who we want to be. Newer models of HP’s Photosmart camera now feature a new ‘artistic effect’: slimming! I think the name speaks for itself, but HP certainly has a way with words:
‘They say cameras add ten pounds, but HP digital cameras can help reverse that effect. The slimming feature…is a subtle effect that can instantly trim off pounds from the subjects in your photos!’
That’s right, fatty. No more complaining that you don’t like to have your picture taken. We can fix you! ‘Subjects still look like themselves’, according to HP, except now they’re beautiful. Even better, you get to ‘see a before and after version, then decide which [version of yourself] to keep.’
Parents, are your teenagers camera shy? With the Slimming effect, they’ll be begging for more family photos! Make your daughter feel better about herself, and create loving, lasting memories, all with one camera!
Be sure to thank your local mass-market media outlet for inspiring this wonderful advance in technology.
A California law giving men two years to challenge a paternity claim is about to expire. The two years is in addition to a six-month period following the initial claim.
‘…DNA paternity testing under a little-known state law allows men a brief amnesty period to prove they are not a child’s father and erase huge debt or avoid more payments. The life of that law, however, is about to end….The law enacted in 2005 allows for a two-year period of time to challenge their paternity. Though there is confusion, the law could end as soon as Oct. 28 or by the end of [this] year.
The law applies to men who did not fight, for one reason or another, the mother’s paternity claim in the six months after being served by the state with papers naming them as the father.’
This is, of course, simply about child support and responsibility. Mothers want child support for their children, the state (rightly so) wants the responsible party to pay it, and men (rightly so) want to be sure they’re the father before paying anything. 1,455 California men filed challenges in 2005, with 397 being cleared of paternity.
But two-and-a-half years?
‘”A lot of times, guys will get served with this stuff, say ‘I’m not the father of this child,’ and throw it away,” said San Joaquin County Superior Court Commissioner Herbert Horstmann, who presides over paternity cases and backs the law.’
Where’s my World’s Smallest Violin? I know I had it here, somewhere…
This is the State of California, not Publisher’s Clearing House. If you receive a notice from the State that you’ve been named the father of a child, why—why—would you ignore it? Why would you allow your wages to be garnished for six months, and not say something to somone? And why should we encourage such irresponsible behavior?
San Joaquin County’s family law facilitator, Sheila Ballin, ‘wish[es] [the amnesty period] would stay open forever’. As it is now, a man can implicitly accept his (financial) paternal responsiblities for two years and still have six months to change his mind.
I’m all for grace. Believe me. But even God gives us a deadline.
I’m sure many of you have seen this commercial from Ford’s new ‘Bold Moves’ campaign. There’s something so demeaning and patronizing about this portrayal of divorce and fatherhood that it’s difficult to know where to begin. Ed Litton makes a fair start:
‘The myth of the good divorce is not new to Hollywood; but, it is pretty much ignored as a joke by anyone who has ever had to file for one. The only truly realistic part of the commercial is the uncertain look on the children’s faces, as their father goes to his home alone. Once again, the myth of the well-adjusted child is portrayed to the hilt. The message is clear: kids are as durable as a Ford and they will make it through this “freestyle” and this “crossover.”‘
Here we see what appears to be a stable, happy—yet broken—family. The ex-wife has made a ‘bold move’ in allowing her ex-husband to spend time with his children. This is ‘bold’ because, in reality, an experience like this could only be the result of considerable effort by each parent to overcome their petty and selfish concerns for the sake of their family.
Why weren’t they willing to put such effort into keeping the family whole?
‘Bold moves’ implies actions beyond the call of duty, behavior beyond what’s expected. But the effort in keeping a family happy and intact is not ‘bold’, it is necessary.
And, if the center ultimately cannot hold, the effort of a divorced father to spend time with his children is not bold. It’s being a father.
Once again, the Zagat Survey has ranked the Saint Louis Zoo as America’s number one zoo! The zoo also ranked among America’s top family attractions, including Disney’s Magic Kingdom and Monterey Bay Aquarium.
If you’ve never been, a trip to the Saint Louis Zoo is well worth your effort. It’s located in the city’s historic Forest Park (home of the 1904 World’s Fair), and features a Children’s Zoo, the Zooline Railroad, a Conservation Carousel with 64 hand-carved wooden animals, sea lion show, penguin and puffin exhibit, and Insectarium.
And, earlier this month, St. Louis welcomed its newest family member: Maliha, a 341-pound baby elephant. She’s the daughter of Raja, who was the first elephant born in the Saint Louis Zoo.
Did I mention that admission is free?
While I’m on the subject, you’ll have a difficult time finding anywhere more fun or affordable than St. Louis for a family vacation. Forest Park alone is worth the trip. Apart from its zoo, the park also has a science center, history museum, and a fabulous art musuem. All free.
I’m not quite sure where to start with this one, so I’ll let the article speak for itself.
‘…what about the good guys who get the shaft, themselves—the men who cherish being fathers, only to discover later that the children they thought were their offspring are biologically someone else’s?….in over 30 percent of paternity cases sent in for testing, the wrong man is identified as the biological father….’
‘…[he] forced the courts to update paternity laws hearkening back to King Henry VIII when, through a simple DNA test, he discovered he’d been supporting a daughter for 10 years who wasn’t his, biologically. Says Smith: “Wrongly forcing a man to pay for children he did not father can wreck his life and prevent him from being able to provide for his own family.”…’
‘…We all have a moral and legal right to know where we came from, who our blood relatives are, what our family medical history entails….’
‘…”…Out of 145 paternity disestablishments (through November) [in Orange County, California], 37 of those weren’t the biological dad” and they were relieved of their child support obligations….”A lot of people don’t ask, when really they should. It’s one of the reasons we encourage both moms and dads to get testing.”
Have nagging doubts, yourself? Request the test. It’s free. Besides, I can’t think of a better way to start a new day than to know exactly who your own children are.’
I know I’m incredibly naive about many things, but I had no idea we’d reached a point where paternity testing is now standard practice; or at least encouraged to become so.
What surprised me was that this isn’t a commentary about the need for paternity testing—or the poor decisions which lead to it. It’s simply a ‘Hey, this is a really good idea!’ This is an installment of the author’s weekly column, Single Parenthood. Would any single parents care to share their thoughts about this advice?
When all’s said and tested, there’s still a child caught in the middle.
[Update: Apparently August is National Child Support Month. Who knew, apart from Delaware?]
This week there was a minorstir among blogfathers at the release of a British study suggesting that men still aren’t all that willing to forego their careers for their children.
‘A Bristol University study found that although new fathers reduced their work hours after the baby was born, they soon returned to their old practices.
It found no evidence that men matched new mothers in combining part-time work with bringing up their children.
Fathers did not work shorter hours than childless men, the study suggested.’
I’m sure the response wouldn’t have been as emotional had the BBC been a little more thoughtful in introducing the study: ‘Modern men are unwilling to break with tradition when it comes to combining the twin roles of work and fatherhood, according to researchers.’
Neither is the media willing to break with tradition when it comes to discussing men and fatherhood. The article, and perhaps the study, seems to ignore the distinction between what men want to do, and what men need to do.
Do I want to spend eight hours each day away from my family. Of course not. I do it so that my family is stronger, so that Kelly can stay with Ian rather than him with daycare. We discussed which of us would stay home, and, as she was breastfeeding, it made perfect sense that Kelly stay home. When the buffet closed, it was also logical that Kelly continue to stay with Ian.
But not because I wanted to work rather than raise my son.
Dave Hill has a different slant on the results, and makes some good points:
‘Bringing home the bacon became a key paternal duty after the industrial revolution separated men’s labour from the home, and the legacy of this piece of cultural custom and practice is neither dishonourable nor likely to lose its purchase in a hurry. Also, to necessarily state the obvious, for as long as it is women, rather than men, who become pregnant, give birth and breastfeed, it is going to make sense for many couples for Mister rather than Missus to take on the (extra) burden of breadwinning after Miss or Master is born, especially as he is likely to be the bigger earner.’
And I certainly can’t fault his conclusion, which should resonate with any reasonable person:
‘In short, the road towards new and improved forms of fatherhood is a long and slow one, and it was always going to be that way. So it’s worth restating what the journey is for – or ought to be for. It is not, as the sneerers say, to turn men into women. Neither is it to destroy the “traditional” family, to “go against nature” in some way. It is to help with the still larger task of helping families become warmer, more stable, egalitarian and democratic institutions in which Dad is not a remote outsider.’
