3 ms·
The studies they're quoting support the thesis that fathers aren't strictly necessary for child survival, only the role they perform is. So from the child survi
by sudhirj 5y ago
The studies they're quoting support the thesis that fathers aren't strictly necessary for child survival, only the role they perform is. So from the child survival point of view, a culture or society that does not have doting fathers but enough community support to fill those roles is just as beneficial as one that has doting fathers. Either way works, from a child survival p.o.v.
There may be other factors that we as a society consider beneficial that we wish to promote, that need present and involved fathers, and that's fine. But that doesn't mean a non-involved father is bad for the survival of the child. We currently based societal mores on more than just survival, though, and that is a sign of progress.
- qiqing 5y agoWhen reading the article, I was surprised to not see the other studies mentioned alongside the strict survival results. In developed/industrialized countries, the number of years a child has an involved father predicts their future income, even after controlling for education level, total family income, etc. Of course, these are in environments where survival is not exactly a close call. Edit to add: I don't know if the results were able to be replicated in non-WEIRD societies.
- mattbuilds 5y agoWhat exactly are “non-WEIRD” societies?
- rpmisms 5y agoWEIRD stands for Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic.