Lessons to teach men with absent fathers

[gorfias]

One woman, by herself will, in relative terms, need subsidy to keep up with traditional, "stable" homes.

All else being equal, though, which is hardly a given. Middle class single mothers may well be earning more than low class traditional families.

Yes but, pickle jars.

I expect the difference to result in a decline in gentlemen. Agreed?

You first have to define "gentlemen" and explain why it is important, though.[/quote]

I recall a story of a newly wed getting between a shark and his bride. He punched the shark. He died, but saved her. That kind of sacrifice. Important?

A story like this disgusts me. This crew was not comprised of gentlemen...

http://abcnews.go.com/International/cruise-ship-captain-detained-sinking/story?id=15361760

 

[Thaluikhain]

I recall a story of a newly wed getting between a shark and his bride. He punched the shark. He died, but saved her. That kind of sacrifice. Important?

Honestly? Not really. The vast majority of people will not ever be put in the position of having to choose to save someone's life at the cost of their own. Because of this, we've no way of telling if someone would do that or not. We can hardly take their word on it.

Alternatively, what if it was the other way around, the bride saving the husband at the cost of her own life? Would that make a difference?

A story like this disgusts me. This crew was not comprised of gentlemen...

http://abcnews.go.com/International/cruise-ship-captain-detained-sinking/story?id=15361760

Oh sure, that's appalling. However, it'd be no less appalling if the crew was comprised entirely of women. They haven't failed to be gentlemen (specifically), they've failed to uphold fairly basic standards of behaviour that should be applied to everyone.

 

[VanQ]

The thing is, we all think what we know ourselves and what we want better than anyone else but that's almost always a product of our culture. I remember reading an article by a female dating coach once where people all said they'd prefer "authentic italian pasta sauce" but when the authentic, watery kind of sauce and a store shelf pre-jarred sauce were presented to them blindly, every person that answered "authentic" said they preferred the less watery sauce.

I guess the problem I have with this is that a guy who wanted to go out with me a couple of years back internalised it as `women don't know what they want, so if they tell you what they want, they're wrong`.
He decided that what I wanted was for someone to open doors for me, take things out of my hands to carry them for me, someone to quote poetry at me and treat me like the delicate flower I am.

Spoiler: It didn't go well

I guess generalising too much when giving dating advice is a bad idea.

It sounds to me like you came across a stereotypical, self styled nice guy. A part of me wants to feel bad for him but...

Did he actually read you poetry?​

Jesus, I haven't ever actually heard of any guy actually doing that in real life. Nobody deserves that. Nobody.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Well...my parents divorced when I was about, I want to say three to four. I was old enough to remember events surrounding it and those memories aren't particularly cherished.

Dad tried to stay in my life as much as possible, but was usually limited to every other weekend, if that, and in spite of it, when he was around, he was an awesome, supportive father. The 'problem' is that he isn't really a 'HYPAR MASKULIN' sort of guy nowadays. If anything, he's on the nerdier, more docile side of things...but he's a strong dude and has a a plethora of stories from his youth (including a hazing incident in college where he'd wound up gripping, and unable to let go of, an electric fence).

I will say that I'm quite a damned bit like him, just without the successful career, self-assuredness, and general know how.

The 'fun' thing is that HIS father was an abusive drunk who used to beat my grandmother. He grew up in that environment and, subsequently, did everything in his power to NOT be that way.

As for general advice, OP?

I just wish I'd been taught how to fix cars. I'd be saving quite a lot of money.

Aside from that, a basic sense of self worth is paramount. Telling a kid that they're "worthless" or "won't amount to anything" can result in two things. One: They'll meet those expectations. Two: They'll do everything they can to rebel against the notion and, maybe, succeed.

Balance it with humility and a healthy dose of empathy and you're...I don't want to say 'set,' but you'd be a much better person for having been taught such things.

I know the above sound like basic things that everyone 'should already know', but, sadly, that's not the world we all live in.

OH!

And if you're a parent and divorced? Don't take every opportunity to talk shit about or snipe at the other parent. It breeds distrust and irritates your kids.

Both my parents did that and it was a constant pain in the ass to separate fact from perception.

I would say that the absence of a positive role model(of any gender) is less of a problem than the inescapable presence of a negative one.

This actually makes the most sense to me.

A positive role model can be found with relative ease, especially with how much the entire world has opened up to people over the last decade or two, but a negative, persistent, oppressive presence is, at best, a hindrance and, at worst, the center of a vortex some people just can't escape.

Edit: Honestly, this subject, as well as many others, can be stripped down to a simple phrase,

"Just don't be a dick."

Which, 'gendered' insult aside, applies to everyone, no matter what they do or don't have between their legs.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

That isn't funny.

I don't see how saying "You don't HAVE to but you should" is any better than saying that the men has to be the breadwinner. Wouldn't the ideal

You said that the presence of a male role model would help solve that. I have a male role model, and it did't. Therefore, your advice has proven to be unhelpful. So no, I won't check my privilege.

You're saying women don't know what women want? Wow. Just wow man. You know, I've actually TALKED to women on what they want to see in men, and honestly I've found it to be a very enlightening experience. Not that many, but enough to know that they kind of know what they want. Either way it's preferable advice to telling people to fly blind

That's overcoming the pain. Moving beyond it The pain itself doesn't make you stronger.

That is bad advice. And it's also a lie. You are not awesome because of your genes that...that doesn't even make any sense. Well if you want to make someone feel good, you should probably focus on something that THEY did instead of saying that hundreds of thousands of years ago we killed big animals with sticks. Not really that inspiring.

Hole for you? Fair enough. Still, it's jumping to conclusions to say that everyone who's missing a father is going to be going through the exact same process that you did. You probably should've capped it off with something like "From my personal experiences" instead of wording it the way you did, which makes it sound like a be all end all.

I never said it was a legal bill, no idea what you're on about.

Equally? So you admit that your idea is indeed toxic. Sham you into not talking? No it isn't. It's me taking personal experience to show why your argument is heavily and I mean HEAVILY flawed. You don't see me arguing that you not having a father is shaming me into not talking. Because we're grown adults that can talk about our problems like that. And I never suggested the opposite extreme. I don't think people should constantly be making their emotions 100% known 24/7, but we as human beings need to let it out. We cannot bottle it up.

In this situation? In terms of advice given to kids without dads that people will honestly give them and not just outrageous ones that obviously people will never give? No. On second thought you're right. Telling that person "no one cares" is the worse advice that could be realistically given in that situation. And you gave it.

Out. Hang out.

Why are women out of the question? There's no special bond between specific genders. People are people. I know it's advice. I don't think it's good advice.

Fine then. Take offense.

Holy strawman batman, I totally said that! Oh wait, no I didn't. What you were saying was supposed to be taken figuratively? Respect? Tell me, what have you done at all to try and talk with respect? Because I don't consider strawman arguments to be very respectful.

*Head desk* Yeah, you can't say that you were talking with respect and then shift over to saying that the person you're talking to wants Big Brother to be in charge. And no I didn't say that. We're all different. But why are men so less different than women? Frankly I find the majority of guys my age to be pricks and my best friend that I constantly hang out with is a woman.

Something that has not occurred to you. Maybe I don't WANT to get used to it. Maybe getting used to things like this is how they become accepted, and maybe I think they're incredibly toxic ideas that shouldn't be accepted. So no. I won't get over it and I won't get a thicker skin. And once again, kind of hypocritical that you said you were talking with respect and when I say that your ideas are offensive you tell me to get over it. What the Hell is so respectful about that?

You're insulted? Didn't you just get done talking about growing a thicker skin? Or does that only apply to other people? And I didn't demand an apology. I'm pointing out the flaws in your arguments. Me saying that I was offended was not intended to demand an apology, it was me conveying that how, as a man, your ideas fundamentally disagree with me. That is all. Don't see arguments where they don't exist.

If you're giving them advice, you're very much pointing out the ideal path you think they should walk down. And frankly your advice is not good. At all.

Oh, I am am I? I didn't make any demands that you apologize, or stop talking or stop giving advice. If you're gonna criticize me, criticize me for things I actually did.

 

[gorfias]

[a husband] sacrifice. Important?

Honestly? Not really. The vast majority of people will not ever be put in the position of having to choose to save someone's life at the cost of their own. Because of this, we've no way of telling if someone would do that or not. We can hardly take their word on it.

A father and husband sacrifices in so many other ways for the good of his family. If he doesn't, I think he is a heel and a huge part of the worst aspects of our society.

what if it was the other way around, the bride saving the husband at the cost of her own life? Would that make a difference?

Yes. Sorry, the male of the species is disposable in a way females are not.

Like thinking of a dozen women chasing King Kong through the jungle to save one man. I'd be pissed at their foolishness.

A story like this disgusts me. This crew was not comprised of gentlemen...

http://abcnews.go.com/International/cruise-ship-captain-detained-sinking/story?id=15361760

Oh sure, that's appalling. However, it'd be no less appalling if the crew was comprised entirely of women. They haven't failed to be gentlemen (specifically), they've failed to uphold fairly basic standards of behaviour that should be applied to everyone.

It would be different for reasons stated. Bad, but not as bad. And you'ld be right to wonder who put so many women into a job like that, where they should be expected to sacrifice themselves for the male passengers.

To me, women and children first, including female crew (opportunities should exist. These circumstances with an all female crew? Sounds like Science Fiction.)

 

[Thaluikhain]

A father and husband sacrifices in so many other ways for the good of his family. If he doesn't, I think he is a heel and a huge part of the worst aspects of our society.

Fair enough, but I'm not seeing why that should be different from the mother.

Yes. Sorry, the male of the species is disposable in a way females are not.

Why? Barring polygamy, which isn't that common in our society.

 

[gorfias]

A father and husband sacrifices in so many other ways for the good of his family. If he doesn't, I think he is a heel and a huge part of the worst aspects of our society.

Fair enough, but I'm not seeing why that should be different from the mother.

Yes. Sorry, the male of the species is disposable in a way females are not.

Why? Barring polygamy, which isn't that common in our society.

For starters, last chance to abandon. Women bear kids and are more likely than men to have nurturing characteristics kids need from a parent (not that a man can't do it. Just less likely to have and use these characteristics than a woman).

And growing to be a good family man should be a common goal for men in our society. Not for everyone. But commonly?

Imagine a society in which men have no such goals.

Will this be the norm?

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

So a thread about giving advice to men without fathers turns into yet another debate about women and sexuality. Because there isn't enough of these fucking threads on this site. At this point, I'm genuinely curious if people are upset this conversation can happen at all.

OT
You are not your father. You are not fated to follow in their footsteps. Abandonment is not inevitable.

 

[Evil Smurf]

Look man, I don't mean to attack you, upset you, or antagonise you, this is just a forum of opinions, yours is valid, and so is mine. That's why civilised nations give the vote to citizens.

Don't be a bigot, think about other people, don't hold conservative views. They are always narrow minded, hateful, and selfish. #lifehack

I would like to just say; there is a difference now between liberals, conservatives and the Escapist's favourite, the New Progressive.

Also, labelling an entire section of wanting family values, preferring a high standard of morals and ethics in their own manner, and putting community first (typical conservative values) as "hate, narrow minded and selfish" is "hateful, narrow minded and selfish" because they are not what you want.

1. I'm a socialist, and not because it's "popular", but because it's fair.
2. If you're not willing to be progressive, than you are not willing to change the status quo, so what's the point?
3. Family values means you don't support gay rights, woman's rights, or workers rights, and if that's the case, you're no friend of mine.
4. Putting the community first usually means being racist, and you can guess how I feel about that.
5. Conservativism is evil, plain and simple. It's the belief that only you matter, and that you can crush people in your way.
6. Only the sith deal in absolutes

Woah, I went way off topic, sorry mods

 

[someonehairy-ish]

So if the OP had said women generally don't fill that role, rather than don't fit that role, it would be fine?

That's still talking about gender roles, though. It's saying that there is something wrong with not having a father, because that role is going unfulfilled.

It's saying that male children might want a male role model to talk to and learn from whilst growing up. How is such an innocuous idea such a problem?

So a thread about giving advice to men without fathers turns into yet another debate about women and sexuality. Because there isn't enough of these fucking threads on this site. At this point, I'm genuinely curious if people are upset this conversation can happen at all.

Well duh, if you let men have conversations about men with other men, that's how the patriarchy gets in. And then we'd all be fucked. Therefore every conversation has to be policed by feminists, for all our sakes.

 

[wulf3n]

We as a society are way too attached to roles that aren't as vital as people like to pretend they are.

Let them be who THEY want to be.

You don't see the hypocrisy in this?

Where's the hypocrisy?

The first post criticizes people for being who they want to be. The Second says let people be who they want to be.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

We as a society are way too attached to roles that aren't as vital as people like to pretend they are.

Let them be who THEY want to be.

You don't see the hypocrisy in this?

Where's the hypocrisy?

The first post criticizes people for being who they want to be. The Second says let people be who they want to be.

Pretty sure pretending this nonsense is vital and pushing it around society is a bit more than that but hey lets rephrase everything dishonestly instead

 

[wulf3n]

We as a society are way too attached to roles that aren't as vital as people like to pretend they are.

Let them be who THEY want to be.

You don't see the hypocrisy in this?

Where's the hypocrisy?

The first post criticizes people for being who they want to be. The Second says let people be who they want to be.

Pretty sure pretending this nonsense is vital and pushing it around society is a bit more than that but hey lets rephrase everything dishonestly instead

What did I reprhase?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

We as a society are way too attached to roles that aren't as vital as people like to pretend they are.

Let them be who THEY want to be.

You don't see the hypocrisy in this?

Where's the hypocrisy?

The first post criticizes people for being who they want to be. The Second says let people be who they want to be.

Pretty sure pretending this nonsense is vital and pushing it around society is a bit more than that but hey lets rephrase everything dishonestly instead

What did I reprhase?

Oh I'm so sorry! I didn't see the part in his first post where he said he didn't like them being who they want to be!

In fact I still don't and see him being displeased with them acting as if those things are vital when they aren't. It's almost as if you substituted "being who they want to be with "way too attached to roles that aren't as vital as people like to pretend they are"

 

[wulf3n]

Oh I'm so sorry! I didn't see the part in his first post where he said he didn't like them being who they want to be!

In fact I still don't and see him being displeased with them acting as if those things are vital when they aren't. It's almost as if you substituted "being who they want to be with "way too attached to roles that aren't as vital as people like to pretend they are"

Is it not a criticism of their choice of who they want to be?

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

So a thread about giving advice to men without fathers turns into yet another debate about women and sexuality. Because there isn't enough of these fucking threads on this site. At this point, I'm genuinely curious if people are upset this conversation can happen at all.

Well duh, if you let men have conversations about men with other men, that's how the patriarchy gets in. And then we'd all be fucked. Therefore every conversation has to be policed by feminists, for all our sakes.

For the sake of clarity, I do largely agree with the views of this site. However, seeing the argument permeate almost literally every discussion gets very exhausting.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Oh I'm so sorry! I didn't see the part in his first post where he said he didn't like them being who they want to be!

In fact I still don't and see him being displeased with them acting as if those things are vital when they aren't. It's almost as if you substituted "being who they want to be with "way too attached to roles that aren't as vital as people like to pretend they are"

Is it not a criticism of their choice of who they want to be?

Using the least bit of awareness about the complaints concerning gender roles in society: No

 

[wulf3n]

Oh I'm so sorry! I didn't see the part in his first post where he said he didn't like them being who they want to be!

In fact I still don't and see him being displeased with them acting as if those things are vital when they aren't. It's almost as if you substituted "being who they want to be with "way too attached to roles that aren't as vital as people like to pretend they are"

Is it not a criticism of their choice of who they want to be?

Using the least bit of awareness about the complaints concerning gender roles in society: No

Some people choose to follow the gender roles. How is saying they're "too attached" to something they freely chose not a criticism.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Oh I'm so sorry! I didn't see the part in his first post where he said he didn't like them being who they want to be!

In fact I still don't and see him being displeased with them acting as if those things are vital when they aren't. It's almost as if you substituted "being who they want to be with "way too attached to roles that aren't as vital as people like to pretend they are"

Is it not a criticism of their choice of who they want to be?

Using the least bit of awareness about the complaints concerning gender roles in society: No

Some people choose to follow the gender roles. How is saying they're "too attached" to something they freely chose not a criticism.

Please show me where he said choosing to follow them means they're overly attached.

Hint: He never specified what behavior qualified as overly attached. You're assuming it.