Research: Are Fathers Really Necessary?

I finally read that article I mentioned earlier in the semester: Are Fathers Really Necessary? from Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Childhood and Society. The article addressed whether or not fathers were necessary in providing children the stability and support they need to grow up "normal" and well-adjusted. Three authors (professors of psychology/sociology) argued that responsible and dependable fathers were in fact necessary, while two other authors (also professors of psychology and sociology) argued that children could receive everything they need from a single parent or "surrogate fathers" in the form of family members and friends.

In reading the two essays from the article, my personal conclusion was that responsible and caring fathers are beneficial, but a child does not necessarily need a parent from each sex to be well adjusted. This makes me feel better about the way I am depicting our situation through my work. I had worried before that people would only see my single-parenthood as a negative, but it doesn't have to be that way. I can be everything for Henry and still expect him to grow up happy and normal, and that is a huge relief to me.

I think the most interesting part of the article for me was the definition of a responsible and reliable father, and what it takes to make one. Ironically, the authors that argued for the need of fathers made it seem almost impossible for a man to be a good father, especially outside of marriage. According to them, it is largely the responsibility of the mother to make sure the father can do his job. At one point in their essay, they say that "in American culture, a woman is a mother all of her life, but a man is a father if he has a wife" (p. 130). I find this claim to be offensive and upsetting. Why is it that fathers are so easily excused from their role, yet mothers are expected to be strong and be there for their children all of their lives? I would personally never think of abandoning my child, but if I did, I know I would be judged much more harshly than any father that did the same.

I found it much easier to agree with the authors that argued against the necessity of fathers. I didn't agree with them because I think that children are better off without fathers (I wish more than anything that Henry could have both parents positively involved), but rather because they did not place ridiculous expectations on mothers. The authors of the "no" side of this article argued that the other authors' "model disproportionately placed responsibility for fathers' involvement with their children on women" (p 147). Instead of doing the same, they ask what responsibility men have for being responsible fathers. I cannot fathom how I am supposed to be a mother to my child while also constantly having to mother his father in order to let them have a relationship. My inability to take care of both of them is one of the many reasons why Henry's father is now absent. There have been times when I have felt guilt over this, but why should I? I do not believe that I should have to be responsible for making someone else responsible.

Anyway, I feel like this is a rambling post, but I am saying all of this to say that I have been reinforced in feeling like I am actually depicting something that can be viewed as a positive in my work. I have made the decision to focus on my child, and I am trying my best to be everything for him. I think that shows in my collages, and I hope everyone agrees. The end.