Importance of Fathers – Sinister Feminist Article on “Deconstructing the Essential Father” vs. Scientific Evidence that Fathers Are in Fact Needed

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAYou’d think it’s obvious how important the role of a father is to his children, God designed us male and female on purpose, and equipped us beautifully for complementary and distinctive tasks.  This is not to say that men or women are individually better at parenting than their opposite sex – often times a mother needs to take over a typical “father-role” when he’s absent for long periods, and likewise fathers may have to take over the more traditional “mothering-role” if they become widowed, divorced, etc.  Those situations are not ideal, however, and most that have had to fill those roles (single parents especially) feel the burden and weight of missing their intended partner in parenting.  The two-parent system is in place, not just because of it being easier, but in my personal beliefs, because it’s as God intended it to be.

In 1999, there was an article in American Psychologist (a scholarly journal) titled, Deconstructing the Essential Father, of which the point was to attempt to discredit the belief that fathers are actually needed by their children in the role of parenting.  It’s mind-boggling to me that such a disturbing article was taken seriously enough to be included in an academic journal, however, with the rise of the wildly liberal feminist movement of the 70’s, lesbian/gay propaganda like this was actually very common, and has in part, led to the societal demise we endure today.

The problem is apparent when you look at it through the lens of equality.  No one – absolutely no one – would dare question the role of a mother to her children.  An article attempting to discredit the belief that mothers are needed would have world-wide criticism as being sexist and ridiculous (which it is).  It would even go against the very science and nature of biology.  However, anything can be written to attack fathers… if a feminist writes it.

Karla Mantilla, feminist author, has been quoted saying,

I am highly suspicious of the upsurge of praises of fatherhood and the necessity of kids to have a male role model.  I come by this suspicion after much experience with my own two kids and their male role model, their father … The propaganda that children, especially boys, need fathers I think, has contributed incalculably to the misery of children all over the world.  Contrary to all the pro-father rhetoric of late, to the extent that we value fathers precisely for their ‘discipline’ and ‘toughening up’ qualities, we create children (especially boys) who are less empathetic and caring.  If we want kinder, gentler (and less violent) adults, we need to focus on kinder gentler parenting.”

Ah yes, the all men are violent beasts kind of thinking.  Wouldn’t she be interested to know that the family set-up that produces the most criminals are, in fact, families where the father is absent (single mother families).

The Deconstructing Fathers article goes on to claim that divorce doesn’t irretrievably harm the majority of children – and that a child who has never known his father would not be the worse for it.
The general consensus of the article is that fathers are not needed – and they may actually make a family worse due to their maleness and the resources they consume.

In my undergrad I majored in biology with a heavy chemistry course-load, I learned and reviewed studies on brain development and behavior between the sexes.  One of the most fascinating things I studied was the researched biological affects of when a father is present or absent at the crucial time frame of an infant’s brain development.  Many studies had already been conducted to prove the importance of maternity leave and infant brain development, however, these were done to show that fathers (and paternity leave) were important as well.

When a father was present, it was found that the brain of the infant developed differently – in areas that remained stagnant when the father was absent.  Something about the male interaction and bonding with their infant stimulated connections that the mother being present didn’t.

An article in Scientific American (2010), which was looking at this particular phenomenon states, “Research shows that the father-child bond is crucial to a kid’s future success. If a father leaves his offspring to be raised solely by their mother, the children are more likely to suffer emotional troubles, be aggressive, experience addiction issues, or have run-ins with the law…. 

A recent wave of studies are starting to bear fruit: We are now learning that in the first few days after birth, changes occur in the brains of both the dad and the baby, depending on whether the father is around or not.

While it appears the seed of the father-child bond is planted by supplemental neurons in a new dad, it seems a child, on the other hand, may be born with a brain that expects this bond to form in the first place. 

To prove this, a few recent studies turned to a rodent that employs a remarkably familiar nest structure. Degu rats are biparental animals, which means parenting duties are split between the mothers and father. Degu fathers behave just like human fathers. They spend the early days of their pups’ lives helping with basic care, like warming and grooming. And as the pups get older, the degu fathers begin actively playing with their toddler offspring. 

Researchers reasoned that absent fathers in the degu nests would create a true social and emotional void for the offspring, just as a missing dad would impact the dynamic of a human family. They found that if a rodent father remained in the nest with his pups – presumably due to the newfound bond with his offspring – his babies’ brains developed normally. But if the father was removed from the nest shortly after the birth of his pups, his newborns’ brains started to break down at the level of synapses, which are short chemical junctions in the brain that allow brain cells to communicate with each other.

Specifically, the degu pups raised without fathers had fewer synapses in both the orbitofrontal cortex and the somatosensory cortex. Having fewer synapses can alter the way information is processed in the young animals, and would make these brain areas perform abnormally. 

The orbitofrontal cortex is a part of the prefrontal cortex that regulates decision-making, reward, and emotion. Extrapolating from the degu rat experiments, faulty synapses and processing problems in this locale may ultimately explain why we see some kids who grow up without a father in their life wrestle with (sometimes very serious) behavior problems.

These rat studies square with what we already know about the role of touch in neurological development. Having spent the prior weeks with the senses deprived while afloat in amniotic fluid, a newborn animal’s somatosensory cortex is ripe for change. But instead of flourishing in the early postnatal days, the synapses of the somatosensory cortex wither away when degus are raised without a father. As a consequence, the newborns may not process touch as well as they should, which could lead to a number of other developmental problems, like metabolism issues or irregularhormone production.

These animal studies show that a father’s brain is significantly and beautifully intertwined with his offspring’s. For whatever reasons, be they biological, evolutional, or societal, the onus of human parenthood has traditionally fallen on the mother. But the evidence is showing that a father has direct influence on his child’s neurodevelopment – and indeed, his brain can benefit as well.

What a beautiful article from Scientific American, and that ending is almost spiritual.  Juxtapose that next to what feminist Karla Mantilla said above, and you find that her claims (especially the claims that present fathers might make children (not just children… it’s always boys) more violent) are shown to be bull-shit.  These findings are proving the exact opposite, that present fathers contribute to gentler, kinder, more compassionate men for our society.  The noble men, and fearlessly strong in character leaders that our society truly needs.

More recent amazing findings are that the father’s brain changes also, it was seen that fathers gain a expansion of grey matter in areas that are associated with bonding and caring for their infant.  This separate study’s conclusion was,

‘These early father-infant interactions and emotional bonding become the basis of the father-infant attachment, The findings may thus lead to the identification of specific brain regions of potential importance for early father-infant attachment.’

With our oldest son.   Masculine strength & tenderness... so beautiful.

With our oldest son. Masculine strength & tenderness… so beautiful.

7 thoughts on “Importance of Fathers – Sinister Feminist Article on “Deconstructing the Essential Father” vs. Scientific Evidence that Fathers Are in Fact Needed

  1. It cracks me up and scares me shitless when responsible adults and publications act like they’ve found some magic new finding which goes completely against common sense based on evolution. Over the course of human history, if it had been found that fatherless children were more successful, all children would now be raised without their fathers so that they would be successful children. Of course, this is not the case historically so we continue to do the marriage and dual parent setup. trust me, if there were strong evidence that children would be guaranteed a better start in life because the father was absent for the first 9 years, that is how we’d be doing things.

  2. Pingback: Importance of Fathers - Sinister Feminist Article on "Deconstructing the Essential Father" vs. Scientific Evidence that Fathers Are in Fact Needed | Christians Anonymous

  3. Feminists do not reject the idea of men protecting and providing for them. They have simply identified the state as the most badass Alpha Male in society. They are correct. The state has lots of guns and the legal right to use them which is why feminists (who are the LEAST progressive females in society) have formed an alliance with government. They agreed to vote for bigger more socialised government in return for government ‘providing’ them with lots of free stuff and special treatment (welfare, positive discrimination, pro women laws and initiatives etc etc). They have essentially married Obama (or insert your nation’s political ruler here) and formed a kind of harem.

    But governments are incapable of ‘providing’ anything because they produce no actual wealth. All the free stuff governments ‘provide’ has to be stolen at gunpoint from the productive population (which is mostly men) or simply added to the national debt, to be stolen from future generation also at gunpoint via future taxation.

    A heavily socialist/ feminist government allows the modern feminist to steal literally resources from her unborn children and from hard working productive men and women in society, but without offering anything in return (such as a cooked meal or a bit of hoovering around the house). This free ‘income’ allows her to remain single and ’empowered’ even when she gets pregnant. In fact many governments have welfare rules which make it more financially beneficial to kick the man out of he house. So even if the woman has a relationship with the father he still ends up living separately so she can claim as much welfare as possible.

    Feminism has nothing to do with being ‘liberated’ or ’empowered’. It is just another resource acquisition strategy which has developed out of our increased wealth, which is itself a product of increases in technology. Feminism is just patriarchy rebranded and centralised so that instead of having CO-dependent relationships with productive (and hopefully loving) men, feminists have opted for a much less balanced dependency on the state. And, unlike hard working men, the state is founded on legalised violence and theft. This is one reason why nations are collapsing under massive amounts of debt and unsustainable bloated governments.

    Soon the economy will collapse and feminists will look around for the best deal and once again identify strong, dutiful, loving, loyal, dominant, traditional men as their best source of resources and protection….. and they will put of a dress and do their hair to attract these men and get access to their wealth. And this will mean children will once again have fathers. And eventually productivity will increase and a new government will grow and start offering bribes in return for votes ….. and the cycle will repeat….

    Meanwhile feminism keeps of demonising men, which is encouraged by the state because the state seeks to usurp men’s traditional role in society. And by sidelining men (fathers) we end up with a more dysfunctional society and a lot more crime, depression, violence, fear and distrust. This is all good news for feminism. The more women feel miserable, victimised, fearful and unhappy the more they will flock to feminism. Feminist authors, bloggers and spokeswomen literally make their living off the collective unhappiness of women, and from the dysfunction of society as a whole. ‘Rape culture’ and ‘systemic misogyny’ are inventions of feminism which are used to drum up business.

    As this blog correctly states, fatherless upbringing is hugely destructive. It is the number one predictor of crime, depression, unwanted pregnancy, dropping out, gang culture etc etc. Rapists (male and female) almost always come from single mother households. With feminism and the sidelining of men it really is a race to the bottom.

    Many boys and girls today grow up with virtually no contact with adult males until they are in their mid teens….. single mum and her friends, female nurses, female ‘daycare’ staff (day abandonment staff), female primary school teacher etc etc.

    And with feminism we see the celebration of the feminine as ‘divine’ in culture. But there is no celebration of the masculine as divine to balance it. For girls this often leads to a massive sense of entitlement and specialness (brattiness), as well as a fear of men. They view men as alien and ‘other’ and naturally fear them them and distrust them, just as white people growing up in all-white communities tended to fear and distrust black people.

    In today’s society the work that men do is mostly behind the scenes (maintaining infrastructure, running industry, mining resources etc). There are no programs on TV celebrating the achievements of oil rig workers or train operators, but plenty of programs telling us how wonderful Beyonce is.

    Inevitably a lot of girls grow up wondering what men are actually for, and viewing them as nothing but a problem, an irrelevance or a threat. The only way men can really show their importance would be to go on strike for a week. But if they did millions would die and it would take about a decade to clean up the mess, so they don’t. And in general men are oblivious to how much they are being demonised, belittled, ridiculed, and gradually ostracised from society.

    As the saying goes “women’s greatest strength is their facade of weakness and men’s greatest weakness is their facade of strength”

    We have now reached the point where some universities are calling for female on male rape accusations to be believed without due process, and women are able to write articles in mainstream newspapers calling for men to be paid less than women to achieve gender equality (?)….. and nobody bats an eyelid.

    Patriarchy’s “women and children first” has been rebranded by feminism as “He for She”. Notice how the concern for children’s wellbeing which was the WHOLE POINT of patriarchy has been dropped. Now it’s just about the needs and wants of women (or more precisely feminist women, as most women are NOT feminists despite what the media would have you believe….. only about 25% identify as feminists).

    “He for She” is what happens when men are driven out of the family and girls grow up thinking their mothers provide everything and men are evil (not realising that the state and/or divorced husband etc is actually giving the mother a bunch of money each week).

    There was a time when ‘Blacks for Whites’ was considered the natural order of things. Today we call that slavery. These days “He for She’ is considered the natural order of things and we call it ‘gender equality’.

    Our current ‘solution’ to fatherless kids going off the rails is to drug them. Lord save us all from feminism!

  4. Thank you for your long “rant” – it makes so much sense and I’ve never really heard it explained that way concerning the state’s role in usurping fathers. Your thoughts on it being a cycle really resonate with me – I believe I’ve read somewhere that democracies aren’t truly supposed to last permanently. That they just can’t support themselves for years and years on end without going under – and then the cycle starting over again.

    But thank you for commenting! Loved your insight!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.