“My priorities are basically to be a good Brother and a strong one, and to try to be a good father one day.” Mike Tyson: undisputed heavyweight champion, hard man, and father of seven
My father, like much of his generation grew up without the experience of an in situ father. From 1939-1945 the majority of the worlds nations were at war, and as a consequence very few of the children born before or during this period had the luxury of a Dad on a day to day basis. With Allied and Axis civilian and military losses being over 73 million – it’s a pretty sure bet that a lot of my fathers generation did childhood without Daddy for the years after the war also.
And yet, even given those chilling statistics, you don’t often hear that generation blame anything upon the fact that Daddy wasn’t home. Funny… you would think that it is a gift wrapped excuse for not understanding fatherhood following such an inglorious start to life.
My father – whose own father did not return – grew up with nothing more than hazy memories of a man looking into his cot. And yet for the 60 odd years that have followed the end of that global carnage has always been pretty clear as to what his role as a man is. He compacts it down to two words: Protect. Provide. These two words have served him well through being a father of three. He had no father in situ to teach him this – along with most of his generation. And yet he holds these words up as his torch to illuminate the sometimes treacherous path that is parenthood and leaves big foot prints for us to follow. My father is not uncommon in this – his generation of men (now in their 60 and 70’s) were very clear in their understanding of their role as fathers and very committed to seeing the task through.
And yet, how can it be that the sons of these men, the sons fortunate enough to have a father throughout their childhood seem to be rather confused as to what exactly being a father is. I am flabbergasted that so many sons of the warchild generation feel that fatherhood is an optional state, something you can try on for size and if you don’t like it – you can opt out.
Now I am not stupid, I know the background to modern times. I totally get it that the Twentieth century left us with little option but to deal with the fact that many families were destined not to have two parents.
I think as a nation we came to grips with the idea of the lone parent when The National Council for One Parent Families (now known as Gingerbread) was founded in the aftermath of World War One. There was no escaping the fact that 37 million civilians and military lost their lives in that conflict. There was no escaping the fact that the highest percentile were young men and many women were left to raise their offspring alone. Then off course the World went to war once more this time leaving 73 million dead. It is an inescapable fact that dead people have a hard time raising live offspring. Of course the total strangers who came back from war also had a rather difficult time sticking with the task in hand. As legislation moved to make a release from matrimony accommodate these changes, more and more children faced a future with no Daddy in situ. Fast forward to today we are at the natural conclusion to that process. The family unit is a lot different as a consequence.
I know the history of how it is so many children are raised by a parent alone. I understand that most men on leaving a relationship will also leave any offspring behind. Nothing new there so this isn’t about that fact. This is about the unconditional contract that exists between child and parent.
My fathers generation know more keenly than any other of the reality of being raised by only one parent – and yet even when the men returned from war and could not settle back with the mother of their offspring – the fathers provided for and protected their children. Those men understood that fatherhood was for life – easier in situ, but for life none the less.
So where did the next generation of men get it into their heads that like romantic love, parental love is conditional. How did it happen that certain men will only commit their time or their money to their children if they are romantically connected to the mother.
Newsflash: WHILST STAYING IN A RELATIONSHIP IS OPTIONAL - BEING A PARENT IS NOT.
The children of a failed relationship are still children. And men… that means that they are still YOUR children!
When children are born fathers take on a rather clear job description. The job spec for fatherhood is rather short… Protect. Provide. What on earth is so complicated about that? Or could it be that those two words are actually the most heavy-weight roles anyone could take on? (Note even a heavyweight champion like Mike Tyson was rather hesitant about getting the role right) But what ever it is it just left me dazzled that there is a morality that says that children from failed relationships are NOT something the fathers should continue to protect and provide for.
I’m not a man so I can only ask the question: HOW IS THIS EVEN POSSIBLE? But there was no point asking a question that I couldn’t answer, I needed to find those who could.
So, I went and asked 25 men of who had children from now defunct relationships a few leading questions. I discovered that in practically all cases the men had convinced themselves they do what is best for the children and each claimed to love these children more than life itself.
I let them talk about their kids. Some even had photos of the children in their wallets. However when I asked them for more information, not many actually knew the name of their kids school – or could name any of their children’s friends or interests.
Pushing further I found out that all didn’t have regular schedules of sending money for the children. They each claimed the mother wants it that way. Then I asked if they had set up an account for the kids so they can get the money when they are no longer under the mothers care… in each case I got met with the same blank look. No … no they haven’t.
The most stunning fact was their lack of routine when it came to spending time with their kids. When I asked each man about the regularity and length of time he spent time with his children, the answer was always the same, some story about complicated geography or hostile new partners. In all but one case each man had spent less than three hours with his offspring in the past month and yet not one had fought to spend more time with his kids.
These men just don’t fight for their kids, they don’t fight for their right as fathers to protect their children or provide for them. Fact is they don’t love the mother anymore and they feel that means that they’ll leave the kids up to her. They feel it is easier on the kids if they stay in the background… and gradually fade away.
I completed by research and walked away screaming BULLSHIT!! At such a furious rate passers by my have thought I had tourettes. It is so clear that the only person who profits from this is the father. He knows it. We know it… and most of all… the kids know it.
MAN UP will you!!! If a generation of men who had no father at home learnt that a mans role is to protect and provide and have delivered on it… what POSSIBLE excuse can you have for being there for YOUR children?
You have the right to stop fighting to keep a relationship with your children’s mother. That relationship was ALWAYS conditional. But the relationship with your child is unconditional…this relationship does NOT have a walk away option.
It is as much a father’s role to battle a pissed off ex as it was the role of the Allies to battle the Axis . It doesn’t matter if the odds are against you, if you believe in a cause you fight and you continue to fight no matter what the cost. (And by the way although the Allies lost more people… they won in the end.)
To all those fathers who have walked away “For the good of the Kids”…. Hear this:
If you have not got it in you to be man enough to protect and provide for your kids… then you have failed as a father, as a man and most of all as a human being.
And as much as your cowardly countenance disgusts me – I pity your eternal soul – for it will never ever know peace.
JaxWorld has been nominated for ‘Best Blog about Stuff’ in the Bloggers Choice Awards. If you enjoy this blog please vote for it using the following link:
http://bloggerschoiceawards.com/blogs/show/80516?load=comments
No comments:
Post a Comment