6 ms·

It is not a father's job to be the person a child goes to for emotional support. A father is indeed supposed to pass down masculinity and how to manage it and h

by _8j50 3y ago

It is not a father's job to be the person a child goes to for emotional support. A father is indeed supposed to pass down masculinity and how to manage it and how to become a socially functional and acceptable man. Mothers on the other hand are supposed to be the primary person that provides emotional support and care. But, the immediate community is supposed to provide that support as well. This is how human society has functioned through history. This is how we naturally function. Fathers being emotional support, mothers being distant and the community being a cold and harsh distant group of people does not work. Teachers and social workers are not "the community". Children don't need psychoanalysis and being taught to think of themsleves as victims if their parents are too busy to attend their school presentations and sports activities and all that, because you have the community right there embracing you and supporting you. "It takes a village to raise a child" not paid employees of schools and governments and psychoanalysts helping politicians draft policies. The entire context of how this question is even being asked is wrong imo. "A child that is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth" Asking masculine fathers to be emotional or telling children the entire burden of their successful upbringing is on the shoulders of their parents is not only incorrect, it reminds me of the proverb "don't grade a fish on its ability to climb a tree". If it is unnatural for a father to support a child a certain way and it is natural for a mother, what is wrong with that?

corinroyal 3y ago
Be careful not to confuse nature with nurture. Naturally humans have a high degree of variation. The traditionalist system you refer to is a construction, if a long-standing one. We can critique the success of this system like any other human construct. To argue that stoic fathers tend to produce better sons requires evidence. We might ask, "Better for what?" Better to be a disposable cog in a rich man's machine, perhaps? There's quite a bit of evidence that stoic fathers produce sons with emotional problems. There is quite a bit of evidence that expecting fathers not to express intimacy with their sons is destructive for both. There's quite a bit of evidence that men who don't understand their emotions and have not been supported in expressing them safely tend to act out in dangerous ways. Yours is a recipe for an exploitative, dangerous world. Intersectional feminism offers a path toward a safe, loving, and moral world.
- _8j50 3y ago
  That's not what I am saying. I am saying someone has to play the role of a father. As a boy, someone needs to teach that boy how to become a strong man but also a man who lives correctly and fulfills his duties. If it was me, I would teach my son to be honest, honorable, to defend the weak and to understand different types of strengths (including intellectual), to treat his romantaic partner right and to learn how to make male friends and make others be comfortable around him and most importantly to understand his place in society and how to succeed as a man. Only a father can do that because a father understands what it is like to be a man and only a father understands the hardships a male child will encounter specifically because he is male. The same applies to mothers and daughters. Being stoic is not what I mentioned but being strong and masculine, except in certain modern western societies is not optional. To put it differently, I wouldn't want my child to be violent in any way but I would also want him to be strong enough so that he wouldn't become prey to bullies and anyone trying to take advantage of him. But also to be strong enough to defend the weak and if the time comes, to serve in the military to defend his homeland and people. Think of it as a job opening. Someone has to be masculine and someone has to be feminine . If your argument is that a boy should not have to be masculine, although horomones and generics disagree, I say that's a different topic because my argument is that both masculinity and femininity are required and for parents who wish to raise a masculine child, unless the mother is masculine and knows what growing up as a boy and becoming a man is like, the father is the only person that can do that. > There's quite a bit of evidence that men who don't understand their emotions and have not been supported in expressing them safely I did not suggest that. What I said was that it is not a father's job or rather, if a mother is available then she is best suited for that job. Boys want their mothers to comfort and emotionally support them and their fathers to teach them how to be a man and to be proud of their progress. I did not support toxic masculinity, just masculinity. > We might ask, "Better for what?" Better to be a disposable cog in a rich man's machine, perhaps Better equiped to succeed in life and be able to care for themselves and others. To live a long and likely happy life and find their place in society. America's prisons are filled with men who never had a father model. Mothers, hard as they may try, at some point their inability to understand what their boys are going through makes it impossible for the child to trust them with emotional support. A well rounded upbringing with all emotional, social and psychilogical needs met is all I advocated.
oblio 3y ago
This take is crazy. I hope you don't have, nor will have kids. Fathers should absolutely be there for emotional support, especially for small kids. Also, distant mothers are not a modern creation, there have always been distant mothers.
- _8j50 3y ago
  > Fathers should absolutely be there for emotional support, especially for small kids. A CEO should know about corporate finance but that doesn't mean he should also be the CFO. Both roles are important enough to have separate execs. Parenting is similar. I did not advocate for an emotionally shutoff and cold father, but rather the responsible person and the person the child runs to for emotional support is the feminine parent which is the mother (usually at least). Similarly, boys need to be taught how to be men. Women have their own unique perspective and as such, mothers should take part in this but ultimately, the parent who should be responsible for masculinity education is the masculine parent, who knows how to handle a testestrome filled body and the specific society's expectation of men and how to address or confront that, and the father (usually) is the right person for this due to biology. You and others are saying both parents can do this. I am saying, the parent with the most experience and qualifications should be the responsible parent without excluding the other parent entirely. You can blame the CEO for being ignorant about the company's financial state but you can't hold him/her responsible for mismanging finances without making sure the CFO did his/her job right. > Also, distant mothers are not a modern creation, there have always been distant mothers. 100% agree with this. But so are fathers that teach boys weakness, cruelty and cowardice or who themselves don't know how to be a man (like abuse their wives). Parents who suck at their roles exist and that sort of is my point. If a mother is cold and distant then should the father take on the role of an emotional support primary parent as well as masculinity training? What is the mother doing? Neglecting the child? Is that really ok for the father to be expected do both things or maybe should the mother teach the boy to shave and to fight off bullies and succeed in the sport of the boy's choice? No problem with that so long as you are not saying one parent is responsible for everything. That's the root cause, you and others are caught up in politics and appearances and avoid holding both parents responsible. Neither fatherhood nor motherhood is a shared duty, parenthood is. These terms are not some patriarchal social construct that you must rebel against. They simply mean children have specific needs that need to be met and parents need to choose which role to take on and be an expert in that role who will meet that need. If a father doesn't know how to take on the role of emotional support for the child because the mother is distant and cold, then why are you blaming the father for not being two parents when you should be asking what could be done to help both parents figure out a way to share parenthood and decide who will take on what role?
strix_varius 3y ago
> It is not a father's job to be the person a child goes to for emotional support. A father is indeed supposed to pass down masculinity and how to manage it and how to become a socially functional and acceptable man. Mothers on the other hand are supposed to be the primary person that provides emotional support and care. This reads like satire. "ChatGPT, please write a paragraph that embodies the concept of toxic masculinity." I'm becoming a father in a few months, so I've spent this entire year reflecting on the fathers I know - strengths, weaknesses, things to emulate and things to avoid. Every one of the "good fathers" in that reflection is someone whose child would go to him for emotional support. It's astounding to me that anyone could believe it's possible to be truly masculine while neutering one's experience of human emotion. Being too afraid of emotion to ever express it, and making your child suffer for your fear, is cowardice, not masculinity.
- _8j50 3y ago
  > It's astounding to me that anyone could believe it's possible to be truly masculine while neutering one's experience of human emotion. Being too afraid of emotion to ever express it, and making your child suffer for your fear, is cowardice, not masculinity. I did not claim that fathers should be devoid of emotion or neuter their emotion. You added that strawman on your own. This is the 3rd or 4th comment in this thread where someone made a similar claim. Clearly even in your quote I said "the person a child goes to" as in the person responsible for that. Just because your child does not come to you first for emotional support, does that mean you have to be cold and unapproachable to your child? When did I claim that or why would you assume one extreme or the other? Why do you people insist that parents should not have specific responsibilities based on their abilities. If you honestly believe you can support your child better than their mother emotionally then take on that role. No problem there. So long as the mother is able to exchange masculine responsibilities with you. Why do you insist that fathers should be responsible for everything and mothers should do whatever they feel like doing? It sounds to me like 80% of parenting is done by the father according to you. A son needs someone to teach them how to be strong and manly as well as gentle and kind and intouch with their emotions. Why so you insist thr father should do all these things? Why do you resist havig to share the responsibility with the mother? This is basic human organizational structure. You can't have the CEO and CFO have the same exact job. You can't have two commanding officers responsible for the same subordinates in the military. Lookup "tyranny of the structureless". In your attempt to do everything on your own, you rob your child the opportunity to get close to both parents bot worse than that, you rob them of structure and clarity which are essential to healthy development.

by _8j50 3y ago

corinroyal 3y ago

Be careful not to confuse nature with nurture. Naturally humans have a high degree of variation. The traditionalist system you refer to is a construction, if a long-standing one. We can critique the success of this system like any other human construct. To argue that stoic fathers tend to produce better sons requires evidence. We might ask, "Better for what?" Better to be a disposable cog in a rich man's machine, perhaps? There's quite a bit of evidence that stoic fathers produce sons with emotional problems. There is quite a bit of evidence that expecting fathers not to express intimacy with their sons is destructive for both. There's quite a bit of evidence that men who don't understand their emotions and have not been supported in expressing them safely tend to act out in dangerous ways. Yours is a recipe for an exploitative, dangerous world. Intersectional feminism offers a path toward a safe, loving, and moral world.

_8j50 3y ago
That's not what I am saying. I am saying someone has to play the role of a father. As a boy, someone needs to teach that boy how to become a strong man but also a man who lives correctly and fulfills his duties. If it was me, I would teach my son to be honest, honorable, to defend the weak and to understand different types of strengths (including intellectual), to treat his romantaic partner right and to learn how to make male friends and make others be comfortable around him and most importantly to understand his place in society and how to succeed as a man. Only a father can do that because a father understands what it is like to be a man and only a father understands the hardships a male child will encounter specifically because he is male. The same applies to mothers and daughters. Being stoic is not what I mentioned but being strong and masculine, except in certain modern western societies is not optional. To put it differently, I wouldn't want my child to be violent in any way but I would also want him to be strong enough so that he wouldn't become prey to bullies and anyone trying to take advantage of him. But also to be strong enough to defend the weak and if the time comes, to serve in the military to defend his homeland and people. Think of it as a job opening. Someone has to be masculine and someone has to be feminine . If your argument is that a boy should not have to be masculine, although horomones and generics disagree, I say that's a different topic because my argument is that both masculinity and femininity are required and for parents who wish to raise a masculine child, unless the mother is masculine and knows what growing up as a boy and becoming a man is like, the father is the only person that can do that. > There's quite a bit of evidence that men who don't understand their emotions and have not been supported in expressing them safely I did not suggest that. What I said was that it is not a father's job or rather, if a mother is available then she is best suited for that job. Boys want their mothers to comfort and emotionally support them and their fathers to teach them how to be a man and to be proud of their progress. I did not support toxic masculinity, just masculinity. > We might ask, "Better for what?" Better to be a disposable cog in a rich man's machine, perhaps Better equiped to succeed in life and be able to care for themselves and others. To live a long and likely happy life and find their place in society. America's prisons are filled with men who never had a father model. Mothers, hard as they may try, at some point their inability to understand what their boys are going through makes it impossible for the child to trust them with emotional support. A well rounded upbringing with all emotional, social and psychilogical needs met is all I advocated.

oblio 3y ago

This take is crazy. I hope you don't have, nor will have kids. Fathers should absolutely be there for emotional support, especially for small kids. Also, distant mothers are not a modern creation, there have always been distant mothers.

_8j50 3y ago
> Fathers should absolutely be there for emotional support, especially for small kids. A CEO should know about corporate finance but that doesn't mean he should also be the CFO. Both roles are important enough to have separate execs. Parenting is similar. I did not advocate for an emotionally shutoff and cold father, but rather the responsible person and the person the child runs to for emotional support is the feminine parent which is the mother (usually at least). Similarly, boys need to be taught how to be men. Women have their own unique perspective and as such, mothers should take part in this but ultimately, the parent who should be responsible for masculinity education is the masculine parent, who knows how to handle a testestrome filled body and the specific society's expectation of men and how to address or confront that, and the father (usually) is the right person for this due to biology. You and others are saying both parents can do this. I am saying, the parent with the most experience and qualifications should be the responsible parent without excluding the other parent entirely. You can blame the CEO for being ignorant about the company's financial state but you can't hold him/her responsible for mismanging finances without making sure the CFO did his/her job right. > Also, distant mothers are not a modern creation, there have always been distant mothers. 100% agree with this. But so are fathers that teach boys weakness, cruelty and cowardice or who themselves don't know how to be a man (like abuse their wives). Parents who suck at their roles exist and that sort of is my point. If a mother is cold and distant then should the father take on the role of an emotional support primary parent as well as masculinity training? What is the mother doing? Neglecting the child? Is that really ok for the father to be expected do both things or maybe should the mother teach the boy to shave and to fight off bullies and succeed in the sport of the boy's choice? No problem with that so long as you are not saying one parent is responsible for everything. That's the root cause, you and others are caught up in politics and appearances and avoid holding both parents responsible. Neither fatherhood nor motherhood is a shared duty, parenthood is. These terms are not some patriarchal social construct that you must rebel against. They simply mean children have specific needs that need to be met and parents need to choose which role to take on and be an expert in that role who will meet that need. If a father doesn't know how to take on the role of emotional support for the child because the mother is distant and cold, then why are you blaming the father for not being two parents when you should be asking what could be done to help both parents figure out a way to share parenthood and decide who will take on what role?

strix_varius 3y ago

> It is not a father's job to be the person a child goes to for emotional support. A father is indeed supposed to pass down masculinity and how to manage it and how to become a socially functional and acceptable man. Mothers on the other hand are supposed to be the primary person that provides emotional support and care. This reads like satire. "ChatGPT, please write a paragraph that embodies the concept of toxic masculinity." I'm becoming a father in a few months, so I've spent this entire year reflecting on the fathers I know - strengths, weaknesses, things to emulate and things to avoid. Every one of the "good fathers" in that reflection is someone whose child would go to him for emotional support. It's astounding to me that anyone could believe it's possible to be truly masculine while neutering one's experience of human emotion. Being too afraid of emotion to ever express it, and making your child suffer for your fear, is cowardice, not masculinity.

_8j50 3y ago
> It's astounding to me that anyone could believe it's possible to be truly masculine while neutering one's experience of human emotion. Being too afraid of emotion to ever express it, and making your child suffer for your fear, is cowardice, not masculinity. I did not claim that fathers should be devoid of emotion or neuter their emotion. You added that strawman on your own. This is the 3rd or 4th comment in this thread where someone made a similar claim. Clearly even in your quote I said "the person a child goes to" as in the person responsible for that. Just because your child does not come to you first for emotional support, does that mean you have to be cold and unapproachable to your child? When did I claim that or why would you assume one extreme or the other? Why do you people insist that parents should not have specific responsibilities based on their abilities. If you honestly believe you can support your child better than their mother emotionally then take on that role. No problem there. So long as the mother is able to exchange masculine responsibilities with you. Why do you insist that fathers should be responsible for everything and mothers should do whatever they feel like doing? It sounds to me like 80% of parenting is done by the father according to you. A son needs someone to teach them how to be strong and manly as well as gentle and kind and intouch with their emotions. Why so you insist thr father should do all these things? Why do you resist havig to share the responsibility with the mother? This is basic human organizational structure. You can't have the CEO and CFO have the same exact job. You can't have two commanding officers responsible for the same subordinates in the military. Lookup "tyranny of the structureless". In your attempt to do everything on your own, you rob your child the opportunity to get close to both parents bot worse than that, you rob them of structure and clarity which are essential to healthy development.