I’ll blog this next week, but I nearly fell over after reading this gem from W. Bradford Wilcox, the sociologist and allstar cheerleader for traditional marriage:
Marriage also binds children to their fathers, who usually find it very difficult to maintain consistent and positive relationships with their children without the support and encouragement of their children’s mother.
That’s world-class woman-blaming, that. Dad is distant, preoccupied, unavailable? Whose fault is it? Brad gives you one guess. Poor clueless men, we need a woman’s support and encouragement to connect with our own children — and if we aren’t connecting, then y’all know who’s to blame.
I’m off to the gym to work out some wrath, and then home to a spinach salad and some journal grading.
Translation: Men find it hard to care about their children without being rewarded with female subservience.
Pathetic—more proof that anti-feminists think very little of men. Pro-feminist fathers I know actually enjoy their children.
Let’s turn this around: If unmarried couples have children, those children aren’t bound to their fathers?
Another thought: What I find most interesting in Wilcox’ sentence is the partly dangling pronoun reference of “their” in “their children.” Are we to sense that the mother’s presence in itself is the source of the alienation between fathers and “their” children, and that fathers might, in fact, be closer to them if the mother were not present at all? Rather exclusivist, if you ask me.
Brad is obsessed with the idea that women ought to be full-time homemakers and mothers, and should do everything on behalf of the family except earn a paycheck. He’s shown over and over again that he’s willing to misquote studies and distort facts to “prove” his agenda. Why do you bother to read his nonsense?
Let’s turn this around: If unmarried couples have children, those children aren’t bound to their fathers?
I actually agree with Brad and the rest of the socially conservative set that one of the major functions of marriage (though not the only one) is to bind children to their fathers. But I’d put it more that it functions to cue the rest of the world as to which children to treat as tied to which fathers (and which fathers you’d darn well better recognize as having real obligations to which children), than that fathers can’t possibly step up to the plate unless the mother-gatekeeper is shaping and encouraging all the way. And of course mythago is right about Brad being obsessed with separate roles. So my agreement with him is pretty limited :-).
Hugo, I think you are being very uncharitable in your reading of Wilcox. Look at the sentence right before the one you quoted (the one that starts “This, by the way, is one reason …”). If we read that sentence in the same way you read the one you quoted, the conclusion would be that Wilcox is blaming men for women who aren’t “affectionate and authoritative.”
A more charitable (and just plain better, IMO) reading of both sentences is that Wilcox is not laying blame on anybody, but rather he is expanding on what he meant by “two parents bring more social and economic resources to the parenting enterprise than does one parent.” I see no reason to read this in such a way that has Wilcox blaming or faulting women (in the sentence you quoted) or men (in the preceding sentence).
What he said could definitely be used to fault women, but I don’t think Wilcox himself is doing this.
I am hard on Wilcox, Macht, because every once in a while, I agree with him. I do believe in marriage, very passionately. I do believe marriage has a role (though not the cornerstone role) in strengthening our communities. But I am consistently exasperated by the way he insists — generally without evidence — that marriage is complementary, with men and women playing strictly defined roles. I dislike his apparent acceptance of the “myth of male weakness”, which suggests that marriage is needed to “tame” men, because without a nurturing women, men lack the will or the skill to evolve and become dependable nurturers themselves.
And so I am hard on him.
That being said, it does seem that men find it easier to siomply walk away from their own children once their relationship with the mother goes sour. It’s as if men view children as belonging 2/3 to the mother and 1/3 to them.
The reason for this, in my estimation, is the fact that too many men are raised to be selfish and to stay boys for as long as possible. Children tend to force people to grow up and so if a man finds himself with a pregnant woman on his hands (that he is responsible for) he seems to often have the impulse to run - either literally through abandoning the woman or more figuratively by mentally checking out of the relationship through work, hobbies or other women.
Too many men have demonstrated by their actions that they cannot be depended upon to take up responsibility for their own children.
However, unlike this Wilcox guy, I don’t think female subservience is the answer. I have a theory (a very Freudian one) that men are taught to simply answer their baser physical impulses without any hesitation by the way in which they are sort of half potty trained. Girld are taught to wait to find a bathroom, sit nicely on the toilet and then wipe themselves, etc. Boys on the other hand (and I have seen this happen) are allowed to relieve themselves in semi-public by relieving themselves against walls in alleyways, trees, etc., when in a pinch. They are not taught to restrain themselves for the sake of social propriety to the same degree that women are. This plus all the other messages men are given about “boys will be boys” thoughout their entire lives or how mothers will often wait on their sons hand and foot while expecting girls to do more household chores (I even had one friend who was expected to CLEAN HER BROTHER’S ROOM!!! - and she’s in about her mid-30s now so we’re not talking about the 1950s here).
Men basically need to be held to the same high expectations that women are, complete with all the harsh social condemnation when they fall short. Only then will their behavior improve.
I have no problem with you being hard on Wilcox. Being critical of people, especially with people you at times agree with, is a good thing, because it helps prevent you from accepting everything they say just because you agree with them about those other things. But my comment was not about you being hard on Wilcox. My problem, as I said, is that you were being uncharitable in your interpretation of what Wilcox wrote. It isn’t at all clear that in the quote Wilcox was engaging in “world-class woman-blaming.” Basically, I just think it is bad practice to read what people write in the worst possible light when other interpretations are possible.
Macht, if you do a search through my archives you’ll see I’ve taken Brad Wilcox to task for the same thing repeatedly. This reinforcing of the “myth of male weakness” is a pervasive pattern in his writing. It’s not bad faith to point it out over and over again; the chance of misinterpretation goes way down with repetition.
I wrote a response that I think got eaten up. I don’t want to write it again, but it basically said that I could find only one other instance of you writing about both Wilcox and the myth of male weakness and the quote you used that time was also ambiguous. I couldn’t find any “pervasive pattern” and I still think a charitable interpretation is appropriate here.
two parents bring more social and economic resources to the parenting enterprise than does one parent.
An excellent argument for same-sex marriage, no? ;)
macht, I’m not understanding your disagreement with Hugo’s interpretation here. Wilcox is saying that without the support and encouragement of the children’s mother, a father will find it difficult to bond with his children. The obvious implication of that is that Daddy can’t do it on his own, poor thing, and it’s Mommy’s responsibility to “support and encourage” him–and if he doesn’t bond, guess who screwed up?
My major problem with his interpretation is that Wilcox doesn’t blame or fault anybody. Any blame or fault is being read into that quote by Hugo. Also note he says nothing about it being “Mommy’s responsibility” or about anybody screwing up or anything like that, either. That is you reading into the quote stuff that isn’t there.
Wilcox says fathers “usually find it very difficult to maintain consistent and positive relationships with their children without the support and encouragement of their children’s mother” but I don’t see how the “obvious implication” of this is that it is the mother’s fault if he doesn’t maintain a consistent and positive relationship with his children. The only “obvious implication” is exactly what he said - that not having the children’s mother there makes it more difficult for the father. And I don’t think it should be read as “The mother who isn’t there makes it more difficult for the father.” I think it should be interpreted as “The situation where a father doesn’t have a mother there providing support and encouragement is usually a more difficult situation for the father to maintain consistent and positive relationships with his children than the situation when the mother is there providing support and encouragement.”
Perhaps an analogy will help. Suppose I say “Marathon runners usually find it very difficult to maintain a positive attitude during the race without the support and encouragement of loved ones cheering on the sidelines.” For the sake of argument, let’s assume that is true. It isn’t obvious at all to me that if loved ones don’t show up to cheer, that it is the loved one’s fault that the runner doesn’t have a positive attitude during the race. The only obvious implication of that statement is that had loved ones been there to cheer, it would be less difficult for the runner. Should the runner fail, its still the runner’s fault, not his or her loved ones’ fault.
Macht, I’ll respond at length later this week. Saturdays are not for bloggin’, but I do promise to go into greater detail.
The only “obvious implication” is exactly what he said - that not having the children’s mother there makes it more difficult for the father.
Except that’s not what he said, macht. Read it again.
mythago,
I did reword what he wrote, yes. I left out phrases like “support and encouragement” and “maintain consistent and positive relationships…” since I assumed you would know what I meant and because in the sentences following the one you quoted I was much more thorough in explaining what I thought he meant.
Do you now understand my disagreement with Hugo?
Hugo,
No problem, take your time.
Trefalicous - I presume you are female, or at least rather limited in your experience of yow boys are raised. However, I must observe that you wrote:
“I have a theory (a very Freudian one) that men are taught to simply answer their baser physical impulses without any hesitation by the way in which they are sort of half potty trained. Girld are taught to wait to find a bathroom, sit nicely on the toilet and then wipe themselves, etc. Boys on the other hand (and I have seen this happen) are allowed to relieve themselves in semi-public by relieving themselves against walls in alleyways, trees, etc., when in a pinch. They are not taught to restrain themselves for the sake of social propriety to the same degree that women are.”
OK, I had some long-winded rant in mind, but *please…
Is there anybody else here not an active drunk familiar with shame as a regulator of male behavior?
This plus all the other messages men are given about “boys will be boys” thoughout their entire lives or how mothers will often wait on their sons hand and foot while expecting girls to do more household chores (I even had one friend who was expected to CLEAN HER BROTHER’S ROOM!!! - and she’s in about her mid-30s now so we’re not talking about the 1950s here).
Men basically need to be held to the same high expectations that women are, complete with all the harsh social condemnation when they fall short. Only then will their behavior improve.
Ok, I edited my last post very badly. Trefalicious also wrote:
“Men basically need to be held to the same high expectations that women are, complete with all the harsh social condemnation when they fall short. Only then will their behavior improve.”
Men and women both, when held to impossible double-binds, almost invariably react badly. With women, we see eating disorders, self-mutiliation, participation in abusive relationships, attempted suicide, etc. With men we see eating disorders, self mutilation, participation in abusive relationships, and (generally successful) suicide. A grossly disproportionate number of men cope by abusing lower-status men and women-in-general. It were perhaps better that those men choose successful suicide. But certainly best is another way.
To directly answer Trefalicious’ post: **Nobody** needs to be held to the same high expectations that women (in your all-too-common experience) are, **least of all** with all the harsh social condemnation… Only then will our society have *any chance* of improving.
I read Wilcox’s quote and article as saying that fathers find it easier to maintain a relationship with their children when their own relationship with the children’s mother is strong, loving, and healthy. Why? In most divorce cases, mothers get primary custody - if they dislike their children’s father, for whatever reason, they can make it difficult for the father to see the children as often as he should, or they can create emotional tensions between the children and their father. The father might then have to fight much harder to have a good relationship with his kids, an effort that could very well have been unnecessary, had he just, to quote Wilcox, “gotten and stayed married.”
OF COURSE this also applies the other way around - fathers can also strive to create animosity between their children and their children’s mother, especially in ugly divorce battles - which brings us back to Wilcox’s original point - that having both parents involved - and bound together by a loving marriage, free of abuse - is best.
I read Wilcox’s quote and article as saying that fathers find it easier to maintain a relationship with their children when their own relationship with the children’s mother is strong, loving, and healthy.
It would be great if that’s what Wilcox said–but he didn’t.
I think the presence of “support and encouragement” equals a strong, loving, and healthy relationship between parents. The absence of “support and encouragement” leads to a fraught and difficult relationship between parents, which in turn makes it harder for both mothers and fathers to have positive interactions with their children. How is this controversial? Or different from what Wilcox is saying?
Catherine, I don’t understand the need to invent what we wish Wilcox had said instead of what he actually said. If you go read the NRO column, it’s even stupider than you would expect from Hugo’s quotation above. The last line about ‘honoring the vows she made on her wedding day’ is particularly nasty given Wilcox’s disclosure that his own mom was a single mother (issues much, Brad?).
Oriscus - You have the right to disagree with Freud. To my mind, though, it makes sense, despite the fact that it is my understanding that Freud is “out of style” in the world of psychology, I don’t think the man was 100% wrong, either.
_____________________________________________________________________
From: http://wilderdom.com/personality/L8-5FreudPsychosexualStagesDevelopment.html#Anal
Anal Stage: 18 months - 3.5 years (approx.)
Physical focus: anus (elimination). Until now the baby has had it pretty easy. Now baby is supposed to control bowels. Freud believed baby’s sexual pleasure centred around the anus at this time.
Psychological theme: self-control/obedience. These things are not just related to toilet training but also the baby must learn to control urges and behaviours (terrible twos). What goes wrong here is either parents being too controlling or not controlling enough (Freud was a great believer in moderation).
Adult character: anally retentive (rigid, overly organised, subservient to authority) vs. anally expulsive (little self-control, disorganised, defiant, hostile).
_____________________________________________________________________
It has been seen over and over again by many people across generations (though more pronounced in earlier generations) that parents are frequently stricter, i.e. more controlling, with girls than they are with boys. Boys are givem more freedom and often times less responsibility in teh home (because they are often not expected to do laundry and cook for themselves, etc.).
In fact all of society demands more “self control and obediance” from girls and women than they do boys and men. It seems (and one can disagree, I am not a professor of anything and even if I were…) to me that it all starts here in what Freud called the “anal stage”.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if boys were to be potty trained to the same degree as girls are.
Hugo’s post really hits home for me. Let me preface by saying that I had a great childhood. My father was in the military and we lived all over - my childhood memories are extremely positive.
My parents divorced when I was an adult and that’s when all regular contact with my father stopped. It’s as if he is incapable of making any effort beyond a call on holidays and my birthday. I have to phrase it that way because my instincts tell me that he really doesn’t give a shit. I’ve tried many times to connect with my father but he has never been receptive to anything other than a superficial relationship. When my parents were married I never saw that.
Because of this I don’t think that he ever really wanted to have kids. This has in turn made me unwilling to have kids until my husband makes it clear that he wants children.
And so it goes.
It could be that the divorced father who does not have contact with his kids feel like a failure and does not want to be remined of where he screwed up…not an excuse just a suggestion that stereotypes do not always hold up. I find it incredibly unfair to label all fathers who have reduced contact with their kids as “dead-beat dads” or assuming the worst about their intentions. I think Hugo and others like him tend to marginalize the individual (especially if he disagrees) and thereby uphold the damaging stereotypes. Maybe if we gave the benefit of the doubt from time to time it would help us all out. I think society in general tends to be too critical instead of allowing that there are good people out there who may make different choices than us and believe differently, but that does not make them inherently evil.