Xavier - where are you for a biological explanation when you are needed. CBTP posted a femislanted perspective on Mothers Day and I felt the need to comment. .
Maybe it should be a crime to raise a child without a father. Open your eyes and see the social damage caused by the lack of positve male role models and a state that actively battles to support a woman keeping a child away from a father.
Debate this either way. The way you are thinking as you read this, which is that I am insisting nuclear family is best and mother should stay with a violent father or as I meant it, which is that a child has a right to the attention & love of both parents. They provide different strengths.
- Insistence on naming a father on a birth certificate
- Shared custody being the norm rather than an oddity when family court is involved
- Changing the law so that fathers are not simply a source of money and child support becomes something divisive and a weapon to be used by either party.
A few exchanges lead to this extraordinary statement from one of the men on the thread:
The genetic role ends at conception. That's it. All other information imparted by the paternal father after that point good, bad or otherwise is optional - and certainly not genetic.
Xavier would provide a far more scientific & eloquent slapdown, and he would be from the left side of the political spectrum.
The patriarchal policy of a fringe church is just not relevant to state intrusion in the family. You may have a religious problem but that is no reason for that to be inflicted on men in general.
Someone who has no children cannot understand the bond. As a proxy, imagine that the state suddenly decreed that you should not see your mother. After all, the mother's role ends at birth. Clearly a nonsense.
The genetic influence extends far beyond birth. the fathers advocates -"whingers" referred to are driven by instinct implanted firmly within their genetic makeup. The same thing that makes adoptive children seek out their parent.
These men are not women hating. They may well hate their former partner but to simply label them whingers is to completely misunderstand what is going on. It is this kind of idiocy that supports the state removing women from the role of supporting their child. As I have posted there seems to be a wilful blindness towards any beneficial father particpation in the upbringing of a child.
I'm not sure why Xavier is so highly rated by you - he features low on the scientific rader.
And the statement by the contributor is correct: the genetic component IS ended at conception. Short of donating an organ or giving blood, a father cannot donate anymore genetic material to the child; but then neither can the mother, for the embryo/foetus/child development, whilst occuring in the womb, follows its own path.
Post-natally, all other influences are strictly not genetic for no biological material is passed. However, genetics does influence, to a small degree, the views of the parents etc. But then, personal views, societal constraints and other influences are also important, ie. "nature and nurture".
But the nature, from a genetic point of view, is done at coneption.
Posted by: MrTips | May 17, 2006 at 12:17 AM
You accept some genetic influence on the parent. My point is that genetics infuences the views of the parents, and the child. there is a very strong bond that is not explained by environment or nurture, therefore genetics must play some part.
Stating that there is no genetic influence after conception and that a mans role is optional flies in the face of biology. what is instinct if not something passed in the genes.
I like Xavier's scientific views because although of the left he tends to approach subjects with a fact based rather than spin based approach.
I have not the slightest clue how he is rated in the nz scientific community
Posted by: sagenz | May 17, 2006 at 08:43 AM
It doesn't look like much of a slapdown.
I'm pretty sure of the science in terms of 'genetic role'.
The Mormon church might be a 'fringe church' although looking at its influence in terms of numbers its pretty influential, but their views on the value of patriarchy are pretty similar to views reinforced by 'mainstream' NZ churches.
The point was that forcing a father on a family by insisting that a couple stay together purely because they conceived a child together is dangerous and silly. It doesn't matter whether it's the church, the state, or the local rotary club - it's a crap idea.
It doesn't take into account:
- women don't always want to live with the father of their children.
- men don't always want to live with the mother of their children
- couples sometimes use sperm donors and don't wish their children to have to deal with the genetic father
- many children have other positive male role-models not based on genetics which I think are just as positive
Basically your ridiculous whiny authoritarian notion that 'Maybe it should be a crime to raise a child without a father' does not take in to account real life.
Posted by: John Anderson | May 17, 2006 at 10:52 PM