I never understood why my dad was gone so much. We had 9 children which caused
him to work 2 jobs while my mom stayed home. By the time he came home from
work, he then had his church calling to fulfill. I rarely saw him, except on
some Saturdays and vacations.My mom raised all of us. He was only
there for the big things.Is that how it is supposed to be?
As I earned my education degree I subbed in a 1st grade class. All teachers in
the grade were female and at the end of the day all came up to me to express
surprise at watching me that day and how I interacted with one little boy who
hung off me the whole day. It made them question what was going on at home and
gave them greater insight into the overall health of they boy. Having both a
father and a mother in the home, caring for and loving each child, is a
priceless asset to the child.
The statistics on church going were quite conclusive, and definitive. Taken as a
snapshot, it MIGHT indicate that religion is often viewed as a weak thing and
something emotional. When a mother does it -- the gentler sex -- it might be
viewed as expected or is a lofty aspiration that we'll get around to
someday. Men are viewed as the tough guys by many and so when they go to church
and act religious, kids just might take it as something that they'd better
do and is okay to do and still be a man. I know in Australia that was certainly
how religion and church attendance were viewed. Just a guess on how it might
Sometimes, I just shake my head when I read statistics in these articles and
comments. For example, we read above that a child is 17% likely to go to church
when attending with only a Mom, but 55% if brought by Dad only. Could that be
that the mothers are more likely to attend church infrequently due to work
requirements?The article stated that father's presence leads to
a healthier baby. Certainly, mother and baby will do better with someone making
sure both get nourishment and health care.I don't doubt that
fathers are essential to the well being of a family, but these studies fall
short in proving it.
For 30+ years I've been a school teacher and can say that when both parents
are involved solutions to a child's problem are much easier to find and
implement. Yes I had some great one parent kids but two involved parents made
teaching and parenting the best situation for learning.
Didn't you get the pop culture politically correct memo; There's no
meaningful difference between a mother and father, a husband and a wife, a
brother and sister, a man or a woman.
A Gallup survey showed that if a child was taken to church by both parents, 78%
still attend church.If a child is taken to church by the mother ONLY, 17%
still attend church.If a child is dropped off by parents, 6% still attend
church.But...If a child is taken to church by the FATHER, 55% still
attend church.Bottom line: What matters MOST is that EVERY child
deserves to be raised by a Father and a Mother. That should be our national
cultural focus for a better future society.
Current technology is a very long way from being able to do away with the
contribution of a father, at least from a genetic standpoint. Genes from the
father are different than genes from the mother in ways we do not understand
yet. Both are necessary for a healthy genome in humans. The only alternative
currently possible is cloning, and even this has significant problems. It would
not be a viable option over generations and there are some serious bugs to work
out before it could be done with humans at all.My own personal
opinion is that fathers are critical to a healthy society, just as mothers are.