The Relationship

Between

Fathering and

Development

 

By Joanna Carnahan

 

 

“Mother must hold the baby close so that the baby knows it is his world; Father must take him to the highest hill so that he can see what his world is like.”

—Mayan Indian Proverb

    

     Yes, fathers can do mothering, and the children do survive, or even thrive. What seems to happen, though, is that the children get enough mothering but miss a lot of what’s best from fathering—which is different

     Good fathering, we’re learning, when done in conjunction with good mothering, gives children special gifts that make a critical difference in the quality of the life they lead.

     People seem to be wondering a lot lately about whether fathers can do mothering. The answer is, of course, that they can. There’s even some evidence from animal studies that nature may have designed fathers to naturally fill in as mothers in emergencies. Researcher I. DeVore reports a case of one 6-to-12-month-old infant baboon whose mother had died and who was adopted by the second-ranking adult male of the group. There are several other reports of such adoptions of infants by adult male primates. There are certainly many more reports of infanticides by male primates, but there does seem to be some provision in the male primate’s make-up for nurturing an infant rather than see it perish. We may infer from this that human males, as well, can adequately fill in as mothers when necessary.

     Or we may look at just the human evidence.

 

Fathers Who Mother

     Most of us know or have heard of motherless children who have been brought up by their fathers.

In many such situations, however, the father has a female caretaker for the children during the time he works. This caretaker usually fills some of the mothering functions and shares with the father some of the children’s affection and attachment. In other words, the arrangement, although significantly different in some respects, is still a version of the usual father-mother-children design.

     Also, most often when a father becomes the primary parent, he does so after the children are two or three years old. This usually means that the children have formed their primary attach­ment to the mother and then transferred that initial bond to their father—or added it to the already existing rela­tionship with him. That is, the children’s initial, pattern-forming mothering has been done by the mother and then continued by the father.

     I don’t know personally of, and haven’t found in my reading, any instance of a father who has taken an infant at birth, given it full­time care, and been its single, primary object of emotional attachment during the crucial first three years of life without some regular female help — older sister, grandmother, housekeeper, or such. With all the variety of arrangements for childcare throughout history, however, it seems highly probable that such a situation has existed — that fathers alone have “mothered” children through their first few years when their basic definition of themselves arid patterns of behavior are being formed.

     Of course there have been cases recently of mothers returning to work right after birth and the father staying home with the newborn over a period of several years. The small numbers of children growing up in this kind of family certainly survive and often seem to thrive.

     What newborns have to have to survive and grow is someone to whom they can become emotionally attached. With no one at all to fill that role for them, they will die. With someone to fill it minimally, they will develop very slowly and, without a great deal of later therapeutic intervention, will experience a certain hollowness in their relationships with others throughout their lives. With someone to provide adequate emotional attachment, infants can develop well within the range called normal, and can become adults capable of establishing caring relationships with others. It seems clear enough that fathers can indeed provide this adequate emotional attachment, can fill the primary parenting role usually called mothering.

     They can, that is, if what we want is “normal” children.

 

Mothers Who Mother,

Fathers Who Father

     There are several strong indicators, though, that children have a better chance of finding out what being fully human means if they are mothered by mothers and fathered by fathers.

     One of these is that there are biological components in pregnancy, birth, and breast-feeding that make the mother-infant bond unique. They seem designed to deepen this attachment and to set it up for continuity. Let’s look at some of these biological factors.

     One is the hormone lutein, often called progesterone. It is present in one phase of the menstrual cycle and is the predominant hormone during most of pregnancy. It has several effects. The physical ones include preparing the uterus for the fetus and maintaining pregnancy.

 

“Many fathers in many

cultures ... experience very special closeness to

their newborns.”

 

 Emotionally it helps prepare the mother for adapting to and nurturing a new life. It is related to inner-directed feelings, to receptivity, to fuller readiness for holding and nurturing. These hormonally-induced emotional states get the mother ready to receive the newborn with the openness needed to overcome the separation of physical birth. Many fathers in many cultures—increasing numbers in present American culture — experience very special closeness to their newborns. The hormonal readiness of mothers seems not at all to keep fathers from such experience; it just helps ensure that mothers are ready for it.
     Research with male sex hormones indicates that they cause a decrease in nurturing behaviors. When testosterone, for example, is given to various female mammals, they act less nurturing. Other studies using androgen yield similar results.
     Another study involved male and female rhesus monkeys in total social isolation. Before their adolescence each was presented with an infant. The females were more nurturant and less aggressive toward the infants than the males were. The difference between male and female could not have been culturally induced. Might it be innate?
     These and many other studies on the biological basis for parenting imply only that the female is uniquely readied for mothering. They leave open the possibility that males may be just as well suited to fathering.
      Children may have a better chance for healthy development when brought up by one mature, loving parent rather than by two immature, rejecting parents. However, children have the best chance for optimal development when brought up by two parents, both of whom are mature and loving. This is true because children learn special things from each parent; how fathers affect their children is different from how mothers affect those children.
     We know this from two aspects of the research on fathering: studies on what happens when fathers are absent while their children are growing up, and others on what happens when fathers are present.

Absent Fathers

     Many studies find that boys reared without fathers are generally less masculine than boys reared in two-parent homes. In some circumstances father-absent boys manifest high aggression and an exaggerated form of mascu­linity, presumably in order to compensate for insecurity about their masculine identification. In other circumstances there are different effects, such as:

·        higher than average de­pendence and lower assertiveness;

·        verbal scores higher than math scores on college-entrance exams, which is more often a feminine pattern;

·        more trouble in forming a healthy romantic relationship with a woman;

·        more difficulty in marriage.

For women, one effect of growing up without a father—or with a withdrawn, unaffectionate father—seems to be a higher likelihood of having problems relating to males.

 

 

Many studies find that boys reared without fathers are generally less masculine than boys reared in two-parent homes.

 

      There are often specific tendencies to be less interested in marriage and mothering, to experience orgasm less frequently, and to have less likelihood of a successful marriage.

     Many other studies indicate that children growing up without fathers are more likely to have problems with self-control and moral development and are less likely to do well on tests of mental ability, among other effects.

     Of course many variables are related to these findings. If a single mother is

comfortable financially, has a positive attitude toward her children’s father, has a lot of what is termed “ego strength,” aspires to a good education for her children, and is able to provide them with a father—surrogate, the effects of their father’s absence can be lessened. Also, the older they are when they lose their father, the less significantly affected children are likely to be.

     Knowing just these few facts about children who lack fathering gives us some insight into what fathering does for children. There is another fact that takes us a step further. In the second edition of The Role of the Father in Child Development, Michael Lamb cites research that, “children whose fathers are psychologically absent (e.g., distant and inaccessible) suffer consequences that are similar to, although not as extreme as, those suffered when fathers are physically absent”.

     In other words, while just being there is one thing a father can do for his children, it is what he does while he’s there that makes the most difference in their development. Further, what he does subtly and powerfully affects his children in two ways, indirectly and directly.

 

Indirect Fathering

     One of the strongest indirect effects fathering has is stated clearly by John Bowlby in his Maternal Care and Mental Health:

     “Fathers provide for their wives to enable them to devote themselves unrestrictedly to the care of the infant and toddler (and) by providing love and companionship, they support her emotionally and help her maintain that harmonious contented mood in the aura of which the infant thrives.”

     This is no poetic theory; it is thoroughly substantiated:

·        One study found that when husbands were supportive during labor, their wives were less stressed.

·        Another showed that women who felt supported by their husbands were more sensitive to their babies.

·        Another, that the better the relationship between a husband and wife, the more time she spent with their child.

·        Still another, when husbands described their wives as good mothers, those mothers did a better job of feeding their babies.

·        Again, when fathers are present, mothers are generally more positive with their children, yet are less likely to feel a need to over-control the children, yet more effective disciplinarians when discipline is needed.

·        And, one factor in a daughter’s development of femininity is how fully her father approves of her mother as a feminine model.

     It goes on, but you have the idea. A book for parents by popular religious writer Charlie Shedd is entitled, The Best Dad is a Good Lover.

 

Apparently that’s not just his opinion; it’s a fact!

 

... although mothers and fathers do many of the same kinds of things with their children, there are some subtle but definite differences in how they relate to them.

 

 Direct Fathering
     There are other facts as well. One is that, although mothers and fathers do many of the same kinds of things with their children, there are some subtle but definite differences in how they relate to them. For the New York Times Magazine, June 17, 1979, in the article, “A New Look at Life with Father,” Glenn Collins describes work done at the Child Development Unit of Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Boston:

     “Graphs of fathers’ and mothers’ behavior show distinctive patterns. In all of ten families studied by the Child Development Unit, the chart of the mother’s interaction is more modulated, enveloping, secure and controlled. The dialogue with the father is more playful, exciting and physical. Father displays more rapid shifts from the peaks of involvement to the valleys of minimum attention.”

 

Definitely by four weeks old, and probably long before, infants are responding differently to each parent.

      Babies, then, are learning to relate in different ways to different persons right from the first contacts with their parents. Definitely by four weeks old, and probably long before, infants are responding differently to each parent. Researchers think that babies need both kinds of interaction in order to develop their awareness of social styles and exercise their sensitivities to subtle differences—both of which are elements of intelligence.
     Pediatrician T. Berry Brazelton, director of the Child Development Unit, describes the distinctiveness of mothers and fathers in another way:
     “Mother has more of a tendency to teach the baby about inner control, and about how to keep the homeostatic system going; she then builds her stimulation on top of that system in a very smooth, regulated sort of way. The father adds a different dimension, teaching the baby more about some of the ups and downs—and also teaching the baby another very important thing: how to get back in control.”
This ability to regain control after testing the limits is a quality that boys without fathers tend to lack; apparently it’s a trait children start learning from their fathers in infancy.
     Trained observers, videotaping, computer analysis, statistics, are the researcher’s tools that all are being used to make us more aware of what’s involved in the universal process of fathering—and mothering—and in children who seem designed to grow up best with both. ∆
 

 

Return