Being a Man IV: Fatherhood

Image via Wikipedia

One plausible area to look for a role unique to men is that of fatherhood. There is, obviously enough, an intuitive appeal to the idea that only men can be fathers.  Of course, it is quite possible to raise questions about this.

One of the first things that needs to be sorted out is the distinction between being a biological father and a father. While most fathers are biological fathers, not all of them are. For example, the father of an adopted child would still seem to qualify as a father, even if he never impregnated a woman. Defining what it is to be a biological father seems rather easy: that is the male who provide the sperm that fertilized the egg.

Of course, a little science can make this a bit messy. For example, imagine sperm engineered and grown in a petri dish. This sperm could be used to fertilize an egg, but it would seem odd to classify the sperm as the father. Perhaps the creator of the sperm would be the father, even if the scientist was a woman or a team. However, let this matter be laid aside, perhaps to be discussed more in comments.

Turning back to looking at the role of father (apart from the biological role), it could be seen as a man’s role because a father is supposed to provide a manly role model and teach the manly virtues to his sons (and presumably teach his daughters that many men lack these virtues).

Of course, this account runs into a bit of a problem. If a father is one who provides the manly role model and teaches the manly virtues, there is a clear need to define what it is to be a manly role model and which virtues are manly. In short, looking at the role of being a father does not seem to help define what it is to be  a man. Rather, this seems to be a bit of a backwards approach. Instead, what is needed is an account of what it is to be a man and the nature of the manly virtues. Once those are established, then it would be possible to provide an account of what it is to be a father.

There is the possibility that there are no special manly virtues or manly roles that are unique to males. Thus, non-males could occupy those roles and have those virtues. If so, it would be possible that a woman could be a father (in this sense) or even a machine (such as an intelligent robot).  Not to be sexist here, it could also be possible that a male could be a mother (non-biological).

Then again, perhaps there are such roles and virtues. So, as an exercise to the reader, what might these roles and virtues be? Also, which ones would be essential (or at least important) to being a father?

College & Convenient Death Syndrome

When I first started teaching, I would generally believe students when they said they missed class do to a death in the family or some other dire circumstance. Sadly, I soon found out what should have been obvious: people will lie about terrible things for rather small reasons (like making up a test).

Since my grandfather died when I was in college, I understand how that can affect a person and hence I am sympathetic. However, like most professors I have noticed the convenient death syndrome: near relatives dying right around test dates and paper due dates. While death is a serious thing, I have often joked that professors should send out warnings to students relatives about our exam and assignment/paper dates and the alarming correlation between these dates and deaths.

My policy on excuses involving deaths (or alleged deaths) has been to express sincere sympathy and then request documentation. I still feel a bit bad about asking for this (“oh, someone you love died…well, prove it…”). But, I’ve found that good students who suffer a death in the family generally show up at my office and have the documentation already on hand.

For students who lack documentation, I have a “mercy” policy: each student gets a “mercy” that can count as a “no questions asked” excuse for a missed exam or late paper. I did this mainly for two reasons: 1) students do sometimes have legitimate reasons for missing class that cannot be documented and 2) I feel bad when people lie to me.

Nebraska’s Safe Haven Law

Safe haven laws allow parents to leave their children at hospitals without facing the risk of prosecution for child abandonment. These laws are generally intended to protect unwanted infants from simply being abandoned (perhaps in dangerous situations).

Nebraska recently passed its own safe haven law. Unlike most other such laws, this law does not have a fixed age limit. Currently, thirty five children (including teenagers) have been left at hospitals in Nebraska.

Naturally enough, this law raises various moral concerns.

On one hand, such safe haven laws can be seen as laudable. They no doubt serve to save some children from being abandoned in dangerous ways and, as such, help to save lives. They might even have some role to play in people deciding not to have abortions. Or perhap not. Assuming that protecting children from such harms is good, then these laws are morally commedable to that degree.

On the other hand, such laws can be criticized because they allow for childen to be anonymously left at hospitals with no legal consequences for the parents. As has been shown, this seems to encourage some people to abandon their children. Of course, it could be argued that the children would be better off being away from parents who would abandon them in this manner (the act of abandonment could be seen as a clear sign of being an unfit parent).

While thirty five children have been left at hospitals under Nebraska’s law, it is clear that the impact is not very significant on a large scale. Obviously, the vast majority of parents have not and would not give up their children. As such, while it is worrisome that some parents are leaving their children, it is important to keep in mind that this is a relatively rare phenomenon.

However, some parents might not want to give up their children-they might honestly believe that their children would be much better off if they were given to the state. If this is true, then such an “abandonment” could well be a commendable action. This is because the parents would be doing what is (as they see it) best for the children-and this is what parents should do.

One special concern about the Nebraska law is that it does not set an age limit in regards to the children who can be left. As such, some people have left older children at hospitals. Not surprisingly, this experience has tended to be rather psychologically traumatic for the children. Unlike infants, older children understand that they are being abandoned.

While setting an age limit would solve this specific problem, the fact that some people are leaving older children at hospitals shows that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. This problem is, of course, that there are a very few parents who are willing or need to abandon their older children.

The state (that is, us) have an interest in protecting these children. But, there is also the moral concern that parents need to be responsible for their children. This creates a bit of a moral tension: on one side, the law should require parental responsibility. On the other side, the law must protect the children. While Nebraska’s safe haven law is good intentioned, it does seem to need some adjustments.

Should Family Be Off Limits?

A great deal of attention is being paid to the fact that Palin’s 17 year old daughter is pregnant. While this would be an easy target for the Democrats, Obama has elected to take the moral high ground by declaring that family should be “off limits.” Naturally, this situation raises many moral issues.

One important moral concern is whether family should be off limits or not.

On one hand, a case can be made that family members should be off limits. First, the family members are not running for office and hence there seems to be no basis for the public to claim a right to know about their private matters. Second, such scrutiny can be damaging to family members. While misdeed should obviously not be concealed, the media can do significant damage by digging into a person’s life. While many people do seek fame and attention, some people prefer to avoid that sort of intrusion and would find it both unpleasant and harmful. Third, people do not get to pick their families (aside from the marriage aspect), so it seems unfair to focus on family members. As such, the media should do the right thing and leave the family members alone.

On the other hand, a reasonable case can be made that it is acceptable for the media to investigate family members.

First, when someone runs for public office it is understood that they will be subject to investigation. As such, if they choose to step into the spotlight, they really cannot complain when their family members get illuminated as well.

Second, While people do not get to pick their family (with the exceptions of marriage and adoption), a great deal of relevant information can be learned about a candidate by investigating their family. For example, if a candidate claims to be strong for traditional moral values and a staunch supporter of abstinence, then the fact that her teenage daughter is unmarried and pregnant would seem to be a relevant fact. After all, one might wonder, how can a person run the nation in accord with her values if she cannot even run her family in accord with said values?

In light of the above considerations, it would seem to be acceptable for the media to investigate family members when that investigation is relevant to assessing the candidate. If it is being done for other reasons, such as mere sensationalism or a political attack, then it would not be acceptable.

Happiness & Children

In the past, it was assumed that a complete and happy life involved marriage and children. While this view has changed somewhat, it is still common for people to believe that children are a key component of happiness. However, recent works have suggested that this is not the case.

Daniel Gilbert wrote Stumbling on Happiness in 2006. In this book, he claims that the satisfaction level of a married person drops when the first child arrives. The happiness levels only increase when the last child departs.

Arthur Brooks wrote a somewhate similar book, Gross National Happiness, in 2008. In his book he claims that there is a seven percentage point difference between parents and non-parents in terms of their likelihood of reporting that they are happy. In this case, the non-parents are more likely to report being happy.

My academic neighbor at Florida State University, Robin Simon, recently claimed that the statistical data shows that no group of parents (single, married, etc.) reported having greater emotional well being than people who never had kids.

When considering these claims and findings, it is important to keep in mind that measuring happiness is a tricky thing. Even when “happiness” is replaced with terms like “emotional satisfaction”, there is still the problem of determining exactly what is being measured. After all, happiness and emotional satisfaction are not like blood pressure: one cannot simply attach a device and get an objective, numerical reading.

While people use the word “happiness” as if they knew what it meant, it has long been clear that people tend to mean very different things by the term. Aristotle, in the Nichomachean Ethics, tried to sort the matter out as did John Stuart Mill. While modern authors also try to define the term, it remains a slipper matter. Of course, from a practical standpoint people can probably roughly estimate how “happy” they think they are.

Of course, this also raises another problem. The results are based on what people think (or, more accurately, what they say). Oddly enough, people can be mistaken about being happy (and not just because people generally do not know what the term means). Some people think they are happy until they find they are not. This is very similar to how people think they are healthy until they actually get a check up or try to do something like run a 10K. A person can also not realize that he is happy. This might because he is mistaken about the nature of happiness or because he has not really thought about it that much. For example, the modern American view of happiness tends to be a fairly self focused and material conception. Given this sort of view of happiness, it is hardly surprising that people would find having children reduces their happiness. After all having kids seems to involve having less for oneself.

In light of the above, any discussion of happiness must take into account those two critical concerns: first, people use the term “happiness” very differently and second, the data rests on what people say rather than an objective measurement.

Laying aside those two critical concerns, there is the question as to whether the general claim about parents being less happy than non-parents is true or not.

On one hand, people seem to talk a great deal about how important their children are to their happiness. People also willingly have children, which seems to indicate that at least some of them expect that this will improve their lives in some manner. Also, parents get to experience events that are typically described as joyous occasions, such as the accomplishments of their children.

On the other hand, parents seem to experience many things that would certainly seem to lead to unhappiness. For example, think about what parents go through with babies: sleep loss, stress, time loss, and expenses. Even as the kids grow up, the stress, time loss and the expenses remain. In contrast, a person without kids has far more free time, less stress and far fewer expenses (in general-obviously a  particular single person can be more stressed and such than a particular parent). As such, it is hardly surprising that childless people say they are more happy than those who have children.

Since I don’t have children, I really cannot say anything about being a parent that is based on experience. Overall, Ive found my childless existence mostly satisfactory. In comparison to my friends who have kids, I seem to be generally happier than some, but less happy than others. Of course, the same is true in regards to my friends who do not have kids: I’m more happy than some, less happy than others.

Of course, I greatly enjoyed seeing my nephew graduate from high school in June and seeing him compete at the State Track meet (he throws rather than runs). Honesty compels me to say that at those events I felt that I was missing out on a part of life by not having children. Of course, whether I would be happier if I had children or not is a matter of mere speculation. Maybe I would be happier if things had been different in my life and I had children. Maybe I would be less happy. I suppose I’ll never know.