I've debated on whether to write this post or not. I don't want to give publicity to the subject of this post. But the subject is just so sad and uninformed that I feel like I need to.
You see, the other day, through a contact on Twitter, I found a link to a blog called: Do Children NEED fathers?, whose author wishes to, "expose the myths pertianing to fatherless children through this blog. Children do not NEED a father, they need at least one caring emotionally capable person to care for them. If that child can have two and those two happen to be mother and father, then great. A child does not NEED a father if that father is bad."
What the author does is recount in vague details the biography of someone who didn't always have a father in his/her life. Then at the end of the 2-3 paragraphs, you find out that it is a description of someone important historical figure. The point is that a kid CAN grow up to be smart, successful or famous without a father. A point I don't argue.
What I do take exception with are 4 problems with her posts, which I will detail.
1. The author has 11 examples listed right now. 11. For every one of them, I can list you at least 100 examples to the contrary.
2. On the surface, it looks like these individuals grew up without any problems. But the examination only stays at the surface. The most recent example is Thomas Jefferson, whose father died when he was 14. On the surface, a wonderful man. Under the surface, left untouched, is Jefferson's pour financial habits and his womanizing, two common characteristics of men who grew up without strong, positive male influence. Nowhere does the post examine any emotional or psychological baggage these individuals probably had (you know, stuff under the surface) because of the absence of their fathers. Anyone can be successful on the surface, but until you know why hinders the soul, that judgement cannot be made.
3. The author never presents statistical evidence or facts to support her opinion. She only states that the research and facts that do support the importance of engaged fathering are bogus and pushed by men's rights movements. This is the problem with blogging. People who do not look below the surface can easily assume the author is correct, that she is an "expert". This is why blogs like this are so damaging.
4. The author strikes only fathers. If we've learned anything, it's that mothers and fathers are equally important. So why only dads? Shouldn't her point be that children can be successful with only one parent, which she claims in the blog description? Too much evidence indicates what I think we all intrinsically know - that children do better with a strong positive male and female influence. Is that always a father or a mother? No. Ideally, it would be, but the world isn't ideal. But realistically, children do better and thrive with the influence of both male and female.
Am I being unfair? Please share your thoughts.