Day_Walker Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Yes, my question concerned the situation where a woman will choose that option because there isn't a man available that she would like to have children with, and that the point of departure is that she will therefore do the child rearing by herself (hence the phrase 'on your own'). I didn't mean circumstances where, for example, she is in a relationship where the man is infertile. The issue I was presenting was the idea that uncles, grandfathers, male friends or another father figure would be present. It seemed that "on your own" was fairly vague because if family would be present then it would seem plausible that a male figure would be around in some respect unless the situation was one where the woman was truly raising the child in a vacuum, with no exposure to male adults. I do not doubt that other studies are out there discussing the effects but the truth remains that the study cited demonstrates that whether the father is biological or simply a father figure the children were benefited in some way according to the study. What would be interesting would be a situation if the benefits were different when a child believed that one man was their biological father when in fact the man was not the child's biological father to determine if there was an actual difference. Link to comment
rosephase Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Children do well when they have more then one adult as a care giver. Having more adults to learn from and feel close to is always a good thing. However the idea of the nuclear family as the best way to raise kids is silly. There are a ton of options. My good friend decided she wanted to have a kid so she bought a house with her mother and brother and the three of them are the main adult figures in the kid's life. I think parents need a lot of support. And doing it all by yourself isn't easy on anyone but that doesn't make that person a bad parent. I always joke with my partners that we can have kids in the house if there are at least five fully functioning adults to help take care of them. Link to comment
PhilliesFan001 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Yes, I would. I grew up without a father in a loving family just the same and I turned out fine. Link to comment
greywolf Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I would not. My desire to have a child has to do with wanting a family with someone that I love. Link to comment
greywolf Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I also do not agree that the traditional nuclear family is the best way to raise a child. I'm not saying that it's bad, just that there are other options that can be just as good. the traditional nuclear family is very western, IMO. Link to comment
Blue Spiral Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I think that it's best for a child to be raised by two responsible, stable adults that are somehow connected, whether romantically or otherwise. Obviously, two people = extra supervision, possibly an extra source of income (or at least preventing the need for daycare), different strengths in dealing with problems, etc. That said, I don't think that fathers (or the more popular "male influence") are necessary. It's great if you can get the father involved, but if not...well, having a penis doesn't magically make us wise or strong, I'm sad to say. Western civilization isn't going to end if the guy that knocked the girl up doesn't stick around to impart his not-necessarily-intelligent wisdom. I think the "fatherly influence helps" statistic is actually the "more hands make lighter work" statistic. If you had three responsible, stable adults all living with a kid and providing love and direction, they'd probably end up as Rhodes Scholars. This is an area where we should avoid generalizing, and also avoid gender. If the kid has a mom and dad that are reliable and committed to each other, great. If one parent is reliable and the other has a destabilizing effect, the kid is probably better off with the more reliable parent, regardless of gender. Putting a choice on a pedestal--or trying to make a unique individual situation conform to a generic "universal" situation--is only going to shove square pegs into round holes. Link to comment
journeynow Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 It would be something to be the child of a sperm donor and find you have 149 siblings: link removed Link to comment
gingerlemon Posted March 30, 2012 Author Share Posted March 30, 2012 The issue I was presenting was the idea that uncles, grandfathers, male friends or another father figure would be present. It seemed that "on your own" was fairly vague because if family would be present then it would seem plausible that a male figure would be around in some respect unless the situation was one where the woman was truly raising the child in a vacuum, with no exposure to male adults. Well, to try to make it less vague: my question referred to situations where there is no man around who sees it as his responsibility to do parenting. I can look back on my childhood and remember some male relatives that I may occasionally have looked up to as father figures, but it doesn't mean that they were generally around. They didn't generally pick me up from school, or help me with my homework, or comfort me when I was sick, or go to parents' meetings at school, and so on. I think many single parents do actually raise their children in a relative vacuum as far as day to day parenting is concerned, at least that's the case for many people around me. I agree with some of the things that people say about the nuclear family. Historically there's been the extended family and the village and matriarchal societies and patriarchal societies and polygamy and so on, so it's not that I think it has to be biological mom and dad only to make it work. On the other hand, I do think gender is important. I definitely think it's important from a societal point of view. I've primarily been raised by a mother and like someone else said unthread I've turned out OK. So have many others i know. But to make blanket statements that it doesn't matter if men aren't present in child rearing doesn't make any sense to me. Men make up half of the population. OF COURSE they should have an active role in parenting. I don't want to turn this into a thread about for or against homosexuality, but I think this debate becomes even more interesting if you consider homosexuals' right to adopt. What implications do single set parents have for those research findings? Very interesting input here, thanks everyone for the contributions. Link to comment
gingerlemon Posted March 30, 2012 Author Share Posted March 30, 2012 It would be something to be the child of a sperm donor and find you have 149 siblings: link removed Haha, yes. It will be very interesting to see the results of those developments in, say, 50 os 100 years.m Link to comment
OptomisticGirl Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 At least those who go to sperm banks know the sperm has been tested for diseases and such. I was watching a ABC program not too long ago about couples (and single women) who (through the internet) have found sperm donors willing to FREELY give sperm outside the confines of a sperm bank. Some it's actually having sex with said donor but for most they meet up in a hotel, guy does his thing in the bathroom, woman goes in and inserts, and then waits. Some how I imagine the sperm bank scenario a little more secure in many areas than that at least... Link to comment
Seraphim Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 It would be something to be the child of a sperm donor and find you have 149 siblings: link removed Yeah, and imagine when they do not know they have married their brother or sister. Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwww Link to comment
OptomisticGirl Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Yeah, and imagine when they do not know they have married their brother or sister. Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwww That happens without sperm banks as well though, although rare. Link to comment
Seraphim Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 The risk is higher when Mr Sperm Bank guy has 500 kids out there in the same area. Link to comment
Huntress0527 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 The risk is higher when Mr Sperm Bank guy has 500 kids out there in the same area. Yeah this is just icky. Link to comment
OptomisticGirl Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 The risk is higher when Mr Sperm Bank guy has 500 kids out there in the same area. True, but most kids KNOW they were concieved via a sperm donor and there are many sites for sperm bank children to find their brothers/sisters. Link to comment
Seraphim Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 That is just SO creepy to me. Link to comment
OptomisticGirl Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 *shrugs* I see it no different than a man having multiple children the old fashioned way by multiple women. But I have nothing against sperm banks or those who choose to use them - single women or couples. Link to comment
Firiel Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I wouldn't. I've wanted to be a mom since I was a young teenager, and I decided that if I never got married, I would adopt one or two children that were toddlers or older (because I imagine a single person trying to adopt a newborn would be very difficult). I think children can be raised very well in single parent households, but I do think there is something to be said about having two parents and having a strong male influence for children. Hence, I wouldn't want to bring forth a child into a situation that I viewed as non-ideal (even if it could be very good). But adopting children who would be in the foster system otherwise would be improving their situation... plus, I've always had a heart for adoption anyway, so it would have been a win-win. Link to comment
Saffron_ Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 I do think there is something to be said about having two parents and having a strong male influence for children. Hence, I wouldn't want to bring forth a child into a situation that I viewed as non-ideal (even if it could be very good). But adopting children who would be in the foster system otherwise would be improving their situation... plus, I've always had a heart for adoption anyway, so it would have been a win-win. Adoption sounds like a great option and I think if it were easier to adopt and babies were available for adoption, more women would choose that. But in some parts of the country adoption and for some people, adoption is just not an option. I've heard of couples being turned away for being too white *see link below* or being told they'd only be considered for an older child. Personally I admire people who are able to take on older kids who might have emotional/developmental problems but I couldn't do it myself. And if it's hard for couples to adopt, imagine how hard it'd be for a single woman. link removed I think a lot of women turn to sperm banks as a last option when they realise time's running out, they haven't met a suitable partner and if they don't make a decision soon, the decision will be made for them. It'll be too late. Who's to say these women don't have male role models in place for their unborn baby and who's to say they won't meet a suitable partner later down the line who will become a father to their child. I do recognise the value of fathers. I really do, but a grandfather or uncle or whatever can fulfill the role of a father figure. And I'm sure plenty of women take this into consideration before going ahead with their decision. Link to comment
DN Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 It is easy to say that another male figure such as grandfather or uncle can fill the father role but it simply isn't the same in most cases unless the male is living in the same house and there is a sort of adoption process. I don't think many people would claim a grandmother or aunt would fill the place of a mother to the same degree. Link to comment
OptomisticGirl Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 It is easy to say that another male figure such as grandfather or uncle can fill the father role but it simply isn't the same in most cases unless the male is living in the same house and there is a sort of adoption process. I don't think many people would claim a grandmother or aunt would fill the place of a mother to the same degree. It was the same for me at least. My uncle never lived with us (would only come over for sporadic visits) and he was def. more of a father figure than my biological father ever was Link to comment
Seraphim Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 I agree, a grandfather or uncle or the kind man down the street can only do so much and be there so often. These men often have their own children and grandchildren and lives. It is not the same as having a father.. With a family member posing as the "father" it also sets up a situation where that male family member now has to play favourites to that particular child and the other children in that family feel cheated. Link to comment
Saffron_ Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 It is easy to say that another male figure such as grandfather or uncle can fill the father role but it simply isn't the same in most cases unless the male is living in the same house and there is a sort of adoption process. I don't think many people would claim a grandmother or aunt would fill the place of a mother to the same degree. No it's not the same. It might not be as good as having an actual father but it can still be good. I only know two girls who are childhood friends of mine who grew up without fathers. One girls mother got a new boyfriend when she was around 5 or 6. She never married him and interestingly he never moved in with her even though they've been together for over 20 years now. My friend loves him and he even walked her down the aisle when she married 3 years ago. She says he's not exactly like a father to her but he's a great guy, he was always there for her and she was glad to have him around when she was growing up. She even lets her baby daughter call him grandad. It might not have been perfect but it was still pretty good. Link to comment
Saffron_ Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 I agree, a grandfather or uncle or the kind man down the street can only do so much and be there so often. These men often have their own children and grandchildren and lives. It is not the same as having a father.. With a family member posing as the "father" it also sets up a situation where that male family member now has to play favourites to that particular child and the other children in that family feel cheated. Well that depends on whether the family you come from is a close one or not doesn't it. I don't think many women who have babies via a sperm donor look to the kind man doen the street to be their kids father figure DN made a point on another thread about the number of grandparents looking after children. I know a guy who looks after his grandson Monday to Friday and has done since he was 6 months old. When the wee man goes to school he'll be picking him up from the school gates 4 days a week. Quite a positive male influence I'd say. It was the same for me at least. My uncle never lived with us (would only come over for sporadic visits) and he was def. more of a father figure than my biological father ever was Considering what you've said about your father OG, it's good to hear that your uncle's such a nice man. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.