20 Reasons Dads Matter

Yesterday I happened upon Lisa Belkin’s year end list of parenting trends for 2013. I have enormous respect for Lisa after her decades of reporting at the New York Times and now as a senior columnist at the parenting section at Huffington Post. I generally pay close attention to what she right since it sets the national agenda for parenting issues. And to be fair she has written extensively about dads in the past. So I would like to make friends with her.

But when I read her summary piece, I was shocked: Work/family balance exclusively from a mom’s perspective; places to live and famous babies from a mom’s perspective; mommy-shaming and anti-mommy-shaming; mommys breastfeeding in public; moms will exert their political power…dads are not even mentioned in the first 11 of the 13 biggest trends in parenting, according to the national expert on parenting.

Then we get to #12.  “Dads will stay in the picture” is the title.

The conclusion?  “All the talk about fathers will continue to feel that way—getting closer, but not there yet.” 

♦◊♦

As much as I found this list deeply problematic for dads, I do respect Lisa and approached her as the respected voice that she is.  She was kind enough to respond to my twitter questions and our conversation quickly spilled over onto email.  In the end she came down on the side of the primacy of moms in the world of parenting.

I actually asked Lisa if she wanted to write another list about Dads for us but she declined, so with no further delay here is my list of 20 reasons Dads mattered in 2012, will matter in 2013 and beyond. If you happen to like any part of this list I would appreciate it if you could tweet it out with the hashtag #DadsMatter and include @LisaBelkin in your tweet so maybe next year she think a little more about the role of dads.

Each item is a story, so click through to what you can relate to.

Lead Photo: Matt and Alexandra, by Randy Schroeder photography 

Dave Sanfacon with his twins.

*This piece has been slightly edited after publishing.

NOW TRENDING ON GMP TV

Super Villain or Not, Parenting Paranoia Ensues
The Garbage Man Explains Happiness
How To Not Suck At Dating

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Tom Matlack

Tom Matlack is the co-founder of The Good Men Project. He has a 18-year-old daughter and 16- and 7-year-old sons. His wife, Elena, is the love of his life. Follow him on Twitter @TMatlack.

Comments

  1. Love it. So true. Dads are on the verge of extinction, and making good fathers like ourselves more and more rare

  2. Very well written. Baffles me that in today’s world there is still a debate over the relevance of dads. My husband is incredibly hands on with the raising of our daughter. We even split the parental leave when she was 8 months old. He stayed home with her for an additional 8 months. She is just as comfortable spending time with him as she is with me. He is as much a part of her daily world as I am, hands down.

  3. Shawn McMahon says:

    In response to your first point: Not every person has a dad, everyone may have a biological father but that doesn’t necessarily mean that every individual has a ‘dad’ figure in their life. Think: single moms who have absolutely no ties to the childs biological father, those kids may have other people step into that ‘dad’ role but many won’t. Think: Lesbians, children born or adopted into lesbian families have biological fathers, but they won’t have dads. And this is okay, just like children born or adopted into gay families won’t have moms.

    Just wanted to point that out.

    • Granpa Chuck says:

      Great point!! Don’t you wish we all came with an instruction booklet on how to be a great dad?? Being a dad, granpa, etc. , it’s taken alot of practice, but still learning..

  4. There is a cycle there, you’re right. She’s featured positive stories about dads and had a bunch of dads write on the blog, and thank god, the HP section is called “Parenting” and not “Huffington Post Mommy,” but maybe she doesn’t realize just how influential she is. Quite often, what she writes about becomes the discussion, so if she writes about motherhood 90% of the time, and 90% of the guest posts are written by moms, motherhood will be the topic.

  5. You’re wasting your breath. She’s the type that believes equality is about empowering one side just because it’s the disadvantaged side. These people seriously think this is the solution social injustice. Any time you hear a so called activist speak from the side of women only instead of adopting a “both sides should be equal” tone, you know you’re dealing with an agenda. She didn’t write the article to promote women, she wrote it to denigrate men. Just wait for the “I don’t hate men!” denial.

  6. Tom Matlack says:

    @shawn fair point though obviously biologically everyone has a dad that doesn’t mean they are a big role in their lives…

  7. courage the cowardly dog says:

    Ok “Dads are Gay” should not be on this list. The link brings you to a story about a child who clearly will suffer trust issues for the remainder of her life because her father lied to her mother from the day they met. This is a good thing? Dads don’t do that, not good ones anyway. That dad is an SOB whose more concerned about his own personal happiness as opposed to his child. And we wonder why people spray high powered gun fire into classrooms. That Gay dad is not a good and I am sure there are good Gay Dads, but they are in the extreme minority as compared to all Dads, gay and straight. These are the facts. The vast majority of dads are not gay at all, in fact, I would bet that the number of dads that are gay are in the extreme minority. As a heterosexual dad I am offended that gay dads are put on this list in as much as it diminishes my standing as a father. And to put that as the 5th reason why dads matter is absurd, offensive and downright sickening in the extreme. Go delete my comment because God knows you folks really don’t believe in free unfettered expression of ones belief unless it agrees with you. And Dad’s who go to prison? Really. That’s a Dad who has set a fine example. It is just this kind of liberal BS that is destroying this country. Please spare me.

    • Tom Matlack says:

      CTCD: the list is just a bunch of individual dads and stories that moved me. Any dad has their own list I am sure. But I will say that an issue that I care about a lot is that we talk more about how gay dads should be given full rights and respected as full equals as parents and fathers. Do you disagree with that?

    • How, exactly, would me being a father “diminish” your fatherhood? Could you explain in specific terms for me?

      • courage the cowardly dog says:

        My children know who their biological mother and father are. They need not burden themselves with wondering who brought them into being, nor do they need to wonder why they were abandoned by a biological parent or why a biological parent chose not to be a fully engaged parent to them. Equating me with a gay parent diminishes the significance of that truth. You may have fathered a child, but you did not father that child with the man you share your life with, you fathered the child with maybe somebody you know, maybe not, I don’t know, but the child presumably has two parents (hopefully), actually 3, two biological and one not and presumably since you are gay one of the biological parents is only marginally involved, if at all. While it may be an adequate arrangement for the child, it is not as ideal as one fully committed responsible biological male father married to one fully committed responsible female mother and that is what we as a society should seek and our public policy should reflect that. Affording other arrangements the same recognition and benefits afforded the ideal elevates the alternative to a level that I don’t believe it should be given, because it is not the ideal.

        • CTCD, I didn’t follow the links, but if the story you’re talking about included a gay dad who mislead his family about being gay, I agree the secret life thing is problematic. I think the stuff about the ideal being two biological parents of opposite gender is horseshit. That’s one combo that has worked for many people, and I don’t have a problem with it, but you’re over-stating the importance of the genetic connection. Gametes (sperm or ova) are necessary ingredients to produce life, but providing the gametes does not make one a parent in the Mom and Dad sense. Whether a gamete contributor is just an absentee parent, or an anonymous donor, that genetic tie does not make them the “real” parent in anything more than the biological sense. Real parents do the hard work of raising the kids, and while that’s often the same people who provided the sperm or eggs, it doesn’t have to be. I think you’re attaching way too much importance to what genes have to do with parenting, as well as thinking way too narrowly about how people come to be parents of “somebody else’s” child. It’s not always a case of “not being fully engaged” or being abandoned, and when somebody parents that child, it’s not somebody else’s child.

          I say this not as a gay man, but as a heterosexual married dad of two amazing daughters conceived with donor gametes. I have nothing but gratitude and respect for our donor, without whom we would not have these daughters, but that donor is NOT the biological parent of our kids. My wife and I are their only parents, because genes alone don’t make someone a Mom or Dad.

          It’s partly a language problem, because we don’t have good, value-neutral words for “sperm provider” or “egg provider”. While “donor” works in the context of fertility treatments, it doesn’t fit for adoptive cases or cases where a kid is given up for adoption or just abandoned. Lacking such words, I get why people default to “biological father/mother” as the most convenient way to express it, but don’t confuse that void in our vocabulary with an expression of what the ideal is, or mistake “biological” for “real”. If most people were to write a list of all the things real parents do and rank them in order of importance, I bet “contribute the DNA” would land pretty far down on most of them.

          • courage the cowardly dog says:

            the secret life thing is problematic

            Glad to hear you think the secret life thing is problematic.

            You have missed my point entirely. I believe the ideal family model is two biological committed parents of opposite gender. That is not to say that other models can’t parent excellently. However, there is much debate in the scientific community as to the extent biology plays in forming who we are. I come down on the side that it contributes about 50%. Which means that in families where parents are not the biological parents 50% of that child’s physical, emotional and intellectual make up is biological. I am sure before you accepted your donor gametes you had them thoroughly genetically screened for downs syndrome and a whole range of genetic conditions, had you not and one of your children turned out to have Down Syndrome would you say you were the reason for it? Of course not. That is a very obvious genetic trait easily detected, but what if it turns out that one of your children were say dyslexic, a less easily detected trait would it be because of upbringing? What if science determines that some people have a genetic prepdisposition to strong test taking ability. My point is that your children, while significantly influenced by your nuturing carry with them a code that affects the way they walk, talk, interact with others as well as a whole slew of other behaviors that children who live with and are raised by their biological parents need look no further than their biological parents to determine what makes them who they are. A child not raised by their biological parents has to do a little more searching and wondering. Many people spend their lives trying to figure out who they are and for children not raised by their biological parents becomes a bit more complicated. You can ignore or you can acknowledge, but it will not go away.

            • You’re confusing disagreement with not understanding your point. You could tip the scales from nurture toward nature as much as you want, but that still doesn’t change my mind about what “real parent” means. DNA may make my kids’ eyes blue or give them Down’s Syndrome, but it doesn’t tell them who to call “Daddy”. The bit about people spending their lives trying to figure out who they are isn’t persuasive, because that applies to so many people regardless of having genetic ties to their parents or not.

            • courage the cowardly dog says:

              Obviously I will not convince you. DNA does more than make your kids eyes blue. Who your kids call Daddy can be changed by the issuance of a court order- that doesn’t necessarily mean you are not their father. No court can change the genetic connection to your child. I understand your point that if you act as a parent to your child–you are there to guide them, provide for them, educate them, feed them, clothe them, teach them, love them etc you are acting in what the Court’s call “in loco parentis” and thus their parents for practical reasons, but a Court – rightly or wrongly can at anytime change that relationship. They cannot change the genetic tie which is why the Court’s will often give the genetic relationship a great deal of weight. You can call it horseshit or anything you want, but the genetic connection carries with it weight that will manifest itself at somepoint in a persons life. I am not seeking to diminish your father figure role in your children’s lives. I don’t know the details of your situation and don’t mean to criticize whatever you did to have your children, but I often wonder why couples spend literally hundreds of thosands of dollars to give birth to children to whom they have no genetic connection whatsoever, when they could do the same thing by adoption at much less cost while saving a child who clearly is unwanted. There should be no unwanted children. If there is a genetic connection between either you or wife and the children then that is a whole different thing.

            • You overstate the weight which courts give to genetic relationships. Yes, they’re weighed according to circumstances, but courts don’t rip children out of stable adoptive families or donor-recipient families and return them to their “real” (i.e., biological, by your definition) parents. In donor situations, in fact, there are detailed contracts spelling out who does or doesn’t have legal guardianship, duties, or rights of parenthood to the child. Besides protecting parents from a donor later coming to try to “claim” a child as theirs, it also protects donors, so for example, a sperm donor can’t be sued for paternity, or if a donor couple splits up during the pregnancy or someone dies, that donor does not bear any legal burden for the unborn child their genetic material was used to conceive. The kind of case were genetics matter as much as you assert are the kind where paternity is in dispute, no one wants to be on the hook for child support, and the biological link is the tie-breaker. That’s different from your legal argument, which seems to be that genetic parents will always be deemed the legal parents if it’s up to the court.

              You appear to have very little experience with what infertile couples will do and why, but I won’t hold that against you, since most people don’t. You make a couple common errors in your analysis:

              1) You frame the decision as spending money on children they’ll have no connection to. Quite often, only one person is infertile or sub-fertile, but they still, as a couple, want very much to conceive with the genes of the partner with normal fertility, and that means expensive fertility treatments. As important as the genetic connection obviously is to you, how fast do you think you would be to choose adoption if she could still carry and deliver a baby using your sperm and donor eggs, and you could afford the necessary treatments to try it?

              2) You think adoption is cheap and easy. It is neither.

            • courage the cowardly dog says:

              In your scenario number 1 there is a genetic connection between the child and one parent and I differentiate that in my post. As to the weight given by courts to biological parents I am well familiar with it in as much as I have represented foster children in custody battles between biological parent(s) and parents seeking to adopt the foster care children. More times than I would like to report the Courts have awarded custody to biological parent(s) who have extensive drug abuse and criminal histories over stable adoptive families. I am not saying that in the absence of something better Gay couples or non-biological couples should be denied the opportunity to have or adopt children. What I am saying is that our public policy should promote the best family model and that is a committed stable biological female mother married to a committed stable biological father.
              I am well aware that adoptions are neither cheap or easy, but compared to ai it is generally cheaper and easier unless of course you are seeking to adopt from overseas then it is exponentially more complicated and expensive.

            • courage the cowardly dog says:

              “a sperm donor can’t be sued for paternity”

              REALLY?!?!?!

              Let me refer you to an article that appears in this very blog about the State of Kansas suing a sperm donor for child support. Wrong again!!!

            • courage the cowardly dog says:
        • Sorry, but all I’m reading here is an elaborate rationalization as to why gay parents are “less-than”. I love my niece. If my sister died and I needed to take over legal guardianship of her, I would, and I would love her no less than I would love my own daughter. Love is what defines a parent. There are plenty of parental figures in this world who have no biological relationship to the children they’ve raised and, if anything, they should be lauded for their willingness to care for a child out of sheer love, having no “biological imperative” to do so otherwise.

          Beyond that, I STILL fail to see what my being a father has to do with your being a father. Period. The end. If I were to become a parent tomorrow, the sum total of “parental glory” would not be reduced by me doing so. Love and family aren’t zero-sum games, and as far as I’m concerned, you diminish your own fatherhood by suggesting they are.

          • Agreed, completely.

          • courage the cowardly dog says:

            They are less than the ideal, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are bad. All I am saying is they should not be put on the same plane as a stable commiitted biological female mother married to a stable, committed biological male father, that being the ideal family. Because of the unwillingness of too many people to take responsibilty for their actions many children are born that are not wanted by one or both of their biological parents and in those instances– which are far too many– loving, stable, committed substitutes are needed and wanted. A gay couple may fulfill that void though it should never be preferred over the stable commiitted biological female mother married to a stable, committed biological male father.

          • courage the cowardly dog says:

            What bothers me is the author above says “Dads are gay” when in fact generally they are not. And to put that on a list of “Why Dads matter” is offensive to me. If anything it places “gay” who are in fact in the minority in the extreme above heterosexual dads, particularly in light the story of the gay dad entry is linked to. I guess the question I have is why do “gay dads” matter more than heterosexual dads who outnumber gays dads probably by a factor of 50 to 1 (or more).

  8. courage the cowardly dog says:

    Any respectable and responsible dad should get recognition, gay or otherwise, but the dad that is referenced in the link is neither. There are plenty of gay dads who have adopted children and are good father’s. Instead you link to a Gay father who lied to his wife and children and probably forever impaired his childrens’ ability to trust which will be carried on in any relationship they have. You tend to give gay fathers, regardless of how responsible they are special recognition and I find it offensive. I believe the ideal environment for children is one responsible and committed male father married to one responsible and committed female mother in a stalbe household and while other familial relationships might marginally work for children they are not the ideal and we should aspire to the ideal.

    • Tom Matlack says:

      CTCD: You are entitled to your opinion. I don’t agree with your assessment of the ideal environment. I believe two loving parents of any gender are the goal, one way too many kids don’t have.

      • courage the cowardly dog says:

        Kids don’t have the ideal because too many people act irresponsibly. Irresponsibility should not be rewarded, accommodated or compensated for. The problem with a gay couple (and to the extent it can be avoided children should not be compelled to live in single parent households regardless of the sexual orientation) is that the child eventually grows to understand that to one of his parents he has no biological connection and I believe biology plays a bigger role in a person’s development than is generally acknowledged. I have 2 teenagers of my own and they can be down right cruel when it comes to respecting authority and I can assure you that in the course of an argument with a teenager a nonbiological parent will hear from the child that he/she is not their parent. You also have to consider the harm to a child who does not know their biological parent and how they might wonder why the parent did not seek to raise them and the harm to the child’s self esteem. Unwanted children (those given up for adoption) are too often the result of irresponsible sex a product of the sexual revolution. Two gay parents are not the ideal and not the same as one responsible and committed male father married to one responsible committed female mother. We have a few thousand years of data to show it.

        I am glad you allow me to express my opinion on this platform. And I will take back the criticism that you don’t allow for divergent views. I still can’t understand why you referenced the article you did, if anything, it makes gay fathers look pretty bad in my view.

        • So in this worldview, should a step-parent ever be elevated to the same level as the biological parent in the eyes of society and public policy?

          This model you present of “Allow alternatives to the ideal but don’t condone them” leaves a LOT of wiggle room. In theory, sure, promoting the ideal while brushing aside (but permitting) the alternatives is swell, but in practice, it means capable parents will have rights and resources denied to them that other capable parents are afforded, simply on the basis of sexual orientation (technically, on the basis of biological link to child, which can precluded by sexual orientation) and that’s something I don’t think we should strive for as a country.

          • courage the cowardly dog says:

            A step parent should never be elevated to the same level as a competent, committed, responsible, loving, fully invested biological parent with a custodial right. Its not a matter of allowing alternatives while not condoning them, it is a matter of promoting what is the best model for childrearing and the public policy reflecting that preference. If we haven’t already realized it, we soon will, but our public resources are extremely limited and thus the reach of those resources should be dedicated to the ideal– ie one competent, committed, fully invested, responsible biological female, mother legally married to one competent, committed, fully invested, responsible biological male father. Gays are late to parenting at a time when public resources are scarce. The data on the extent to which gays can fully fulfill the parenting role is too insufficient to risk scarce resources to such parenting arrangements and thus, in my view, should not be afforded to gay parents.

  9. What bothers me most about Lisa’s type is, while she’s so willing to exclude, or marginalize dads in this article, I’m sure she will inevitably come down on the side of blaming fatherlessness 100% on fathers themselves, not realizing how her own marginalization of fathers plays a part, both in fathers giving up, and in mothers deciding the father isn’t required and cutting them out. Sure, she may have good things to say about fathers who are around, but that doesn’t means she doesn’t see that as some kind of superfluous bonus.

  10. courage the cowardly dog says:

    Here’s my list:

    Dad’s who get up and go off to work before dawn and come home from work after dark
    Dad’s who sacrifice their own careers to stay home and raise their children because their wives/mothers of their children are driven careerists and if the Dad insisted that his career should take priority over hers the stability of the family would be in jeopardy
    Dads married to the mother of his children
    Dads who take their children to church or synagogue
    Dads who are honest and do the right thing
    Dads who are committed to their marriages, their wives and their families
    Dads who go off to war to defend their country

  11. There is diversity as to who dad’s are in 2012. I think it was mentioned that each of us could easily have our own list and I’d like to add, a story that goes behind each listed on the list. If we were all to add to the list, it would be endless. It is sad though, not long ago, the list would be much smaller and more common between us.

  12. CTCD: Your responses, in my opinion, reflect your disdain for anything different than the religious norm of family. By putting in phrases/backhanded compliments like “They are less than the ideal, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are bad.” when referring to gay parents, you do the very thing that you claim to have gotten from this article: be offensive. Love is love. Period. You nor I should have the ability to say what is “the right kind” of love. Love just is. Would your rationale apply to blended families as well? I have two step daughters that I love unequivocably, and my wife loves my sons as if she spawned them herself. But we are not the biological parents of our step kids, so, by your logic it appears that we are not an ideal family, despite the love we all have for each other.

    • courage the cowardly dog says:

      Doug, you are wrong. I don’t have disdain for “anything different”. To the extent that your stepchildren and your wife’s stepchildren don’t have a relationship with a biological parent it is not ideal. I don’t know what is wrong with the absent biological parent, but you.re not suggesting that if the missing biological parent were capable of being a fully involved and invested parent they shouldn’t have a fully involved and invested relationship with their biological children, are you?. In your case do your children have as complete a relationship with their biological mother as they do with you and does your wife’s biological children have as complete a relationship their biological father as they do with their biological mother. The fact that a biological parent has either abandoned, rejected or been alienated from their biological children is a shame in my view. You don’t really believe that is a good thing do you? The fact that you and your wife have stepped in to fill a void is good, but the “loss” of the biological parent is not. Don’t you agree?

      • CTCD: I never said the other biological parents don’t have a reltionship with our kids; in point of fact, they do. There are custody agreements in place, and for the most part, time is equally shared. You simply assumed that was the case to try to bolster your argument.

        I do not disagree that a biological parent who is able to be a part of their kids life should do so, but what you stating is that the absolue apex of appropriate parenthood is the two biological parents and the kids being one single family. To do so dimisses the millions of step-parents, adoptive parents and even single parents as having no shot whatsoever at being as good a parent as the biological ones, which is rubbish. What do you think about someone from my background? My biological father died when I was very young, after my mother had remarried to my step-father, whom I have always called dad. He raised me; he’s my father. My biological father was not a wonderful man, whereas my step-father was and is so. By your notion, I would have been better off being with a man who was not as good a parent than with a man who taught me more about being a good husband and father than I could have hoped for. Just seems like such a narrow way of thinking to believe that there is only one certain way to be a good parent.

        • courage the cowardly dog says:

          I am not saying there is only one way. I am saying there is only one best way. I am glad to hear that your children have a relationship with their biological parents, I hope it is a good one. I am also sorry you didn’t have a good relationship with your biological father, but wouldn’t it have been better if you did? There are not absolutes. All I am saying is there are degrees of perfection. The perfect family model is in my view one biological female mother married and committed to one biological male father. If you were to make a list of the best family model that would be at the top and everything else would follow and that is not to say that what would follow is not good, but it is not as good as the perfect family model (and they do exist in greater numbers than popular media would have you believe). I believe our public policy should reach for the best and again that is not to say that for the benefit of our children that lesser family models should not enjoy the benefits of our public policy, all I am saying is that in the hierarchy of family models the best should be endowed with benefits of our public policy to a greater extent than any other model. Call it what you will, it does not change the facts.

          • Sadly, your “facts” are ascertained from studies that are christian-based and strive to keep the nuclear family as the “ideal” so their beliefs are perpetuated. Your use of the word “perfect” in relation to 2 biological parents with the child(ren) belies that your core beliefs are in that vein. I could certainly be incorrect, but years of being on the outside of that mindset/belief system, I’m fairly well-versed in the double speak used. I’d say you should read a book called “Sex After Dawn”, which speaks to how before agriculture and religion came along, villages raised children, not individual parents. Being nomadic, this was how people raised their kids. Not to mention marriage was a foreign concept. Community was all. What it boils down to, seemingly, is that you see your way as more right than any other way. And that, it seems to me, is a mighty small-minded way to perceive parenthood.

            • courage the cowardly dog says:

              You’re entitled to your opinion. You are wrong about the studies being “[C]hristian based”. There are similar studies that have come out of Jewish and Islamic institutions. Beyond that, human experience tells us that two biological committed parents is the best model. Are you suggesting that some artificial construct of non-biological parents is better than two biological parents working together in a responsible manner to raise genetically related children. Yes, we evolved from a communal society to a more individualistic one that receives support in a superficial way from the community at large. I think that reflects human advancement not regression. I see one biological committed responsible female mother married to one biological committed responsible male father to be a better model for raising children because it is better. Call small minded or throw any other insult at me, but it won’t change my opinion or what the facts are as human kind has experienced those facts from a diversity of religious viewpoint.

  13. courage the cowardly dog says:

    Why homosexuals should not be parents see the following:

    http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/kansas-sues-sperm-donor-for-child-support-news/

    Taxpayers should not be asked to pick up the tab if the gay couple’s relationship goes bad and the biological mother seeks welfare for the child. A financially capable sperm donor should not be passing his financial obligation on to the taxpayer. After all didn’t the sperm donor get paid for his “donation”?

    • I think some commenters missed the point of the list here.

      The list was “20 Reasons Dads Matter,” NOT 20 examples of perfect dads. “Matter” means “are significant,” and in the context of this article, can be extrapolated to “are as significant as Moms.”

      What appalled me about the HuffPo article, and what is somewhat alluded to here, is that the author of that article equated PARENT with MOM. She set out to talk about parenting trends, but then focused almost entirely on Momming trends. I’m not a parent and have no intention to ever become one, but I gnash my teeth when anyone presents Moms as the Ultimate Parent and Dads as, at best the well-intentioned sidekick, at worst the deadbeat.

      • Sorry, I clicked the wrong reply button, this wasn’t supposed to be a reply to your comment about the Kansas case.

      • courage the cowardly dog says:

        I couldn’t agree with you more. Fathers are routinely marginalized. That is wrong. The problem is that the author here makes a list of “why Dads matter” and to each entry on the list he has a link to an article about a Dad or something having to do with Dads and the reason why the listed entry makes Dads matter. One reason he has is that “Dads are Gay” and it is linked to a story about a Dad who lived a lie, lied to his wife, his children and the world and then decided he didn’t want to live the lie anymore. The trauma he has inflicted on those children and it is apparent in the article that he has traumatized his daughter even if he ignores it, makes me believe that that Dad shouldn’t matter. He should be marginalized. We should not hold up for recognition Dads who do wrong and most Dads don’t do wrong. Most Dads are responsible, caring, nurturing, loving parents who are honest, hard working people and here they get ignored and the bad Dad get worldwide internet recognition. I find that incongruous in the extreme. But I thank you for recognizing the goodness of the vast majority of Dads., which I would like to believe was the author’s point.

Trackbacks

  1. […] wrote a counterpoint to Belkin, titled, “20 Reasons Dads Matter,” and all points are true – things like “every kid (and adult) has a dad,” “dads care […]

Speak Your Mind

*