Examining Fatherhood

The day after Fathers Day might be a good time to ask, what is a father?  A couple of stories in the news lately give examples of fatherhood at its worst.   The first is about a 33-year-old man who fathered 30 children by 11 women over 14 years.  He can’t make child support payments plus support himself on his minimum wage job.  The last paragraph of the same article refers to an NFL player, 5 years his junior, who runs a close second with 10 children by 8 women.  Although child support is likely no problem for him, the lack of responsibility in both cases is glaring.  Those 19 women are no less guilty.  It does take two, and they apparently fell into bed with these charming or famous men with no thought about the future consequences of their behavior, or perhaps; in the NFL case, with the intention of using the baby as a meal ticket!

That NFL player is not an isolated instance.  Another article resulting from the same Internet search asks why the NFL isn’t cracking down on this kind of player behavior and lists several others in similar situations.

Thinking about this in terms of behavior and consequences, especially societal consequences, setting aside the (NFL) role model and morality issues, such behavior shows problems in responsibility with an immediate economic burden on the whole society. 

The irresponsibility is very clear in the first case, but this is just one extreme example of the behavior of many.  A man with only a minimum wage job has not earned the right to father one child, no less 30.  We are not a society of animals where the urge to procreate trumps the resultant responsibilities.  In some species, the males mate and then leave the mother to raise the offspring.  Others lay eggs and walk away, leaving the hatchlings to fend for themselves.  Responsible humans raise children to adulthood.  Sorry, that’s the way it works – or the way Nature intended.

These men seem to think they can walk away, leaving the women to raise the children often with the government acting as the surrogate breadwinner, using taxes collected from responsible Americans.  Even if they can provide the financial support, they avoid an obligation that results in society living with the consequences.  Many studies show that “children who grow up apart from their biological fathers do less well, on average, than children who grow up with both natural parents. They are less likely to finish high school and attend college, less likely to find and keep a steady job, and more likely to become teen mothers.”  Other research concludes:  “Children in father-absent homes are almost four times more likely to be poor” and show higher levels of aggressive behavior.  We also are confronted with statistics about food insecurity among children with private and public agencies forced to provide (or subsidize) breakfasts, lunches and summer meals to keep the children nourished and relatively healthy. The fathers’ irresponsible behavior leaves their families at risk and society to pick up the pieces.

Don’t let the women off the hook.  Family instability results from the behavior of both parties.  Some women have decided to have “a child on their own rather than settle for a man who isn’t likely to be a good and loving husband or parent.”  This is not limited to those who can financially support the child.  Despite what the Single Mothers by Choice organization might imply, the US Census Bureau reports that nearly 40% of non-marital births occur in households with an annual income less than $25, 000.

The most troubling thing about the situation is that society seems to ignore and enable the situation.  The man who fathered 30 is getting attention from interviewers, and the article seems to treat the whole situation in a lighthearted way, as if this guy set some kind of record.  It’s not treated as a problem.  Perhaps he gains some notoriety, but the fact that he promised to stop four years and nine children ago shows that he feels no shame – not surprising in a society that puts so much emphasis on self-esteem that shame is a no-no.  What he has done is not against the law, and it’s pretty futile to try to legislate morality; but how do we provide all those children a means of escaping the cycle of poverty? 

A review of a recent book on the subject summarizes the dismal conclusion:  “Single parents are here to stay, and their worsening situation is tearing at the fabric of our society. It is imperative, the authors show, that we shift more of the costs of raising children from mothers to fathers and from parents to society at large. Likewise, we must develop universal assistance programs that benefit low-income two-parent families as well as single mothers.” [Emphasis added.]  In other words, the Harvard/Princeton authors, “based on four national surveys and drawing on more than a decade of research” endorse burdening society with the consequences as the only solution, thereby enabling the continuation of this reckless behavior.

It all comes down to individual responsibility.  I’ve written in the past that giving up responsibility leads to more government regulations and loss of freedom.  This issue has a different twist where other’s lack of responsibility leads to a continuing cycle of deeper government dependence for some, supported by the taxes of the rest – a bad outcome for everyone.

Hear it Here First!

Drawing conclusions using the behavioral model is not difficult.  With a little practice most people can see the behavioral errors of Americans, as reflected in the news or their personal observations, and predict the obvious consequences.  Here are a few examples of past posts confirmed by current news items.

Last November I wrote about how drug companies encourage us to put our doctors on the spot by asking for specific drugs.  They are faced with acceding to the patient's request or risking an argument (and possible lawsuit).  This dynamic leads to higher drug sales, more stress on the healthcare budget and some patients receiving unnecessary treatment.  Now we encounter this article explaining how more advertising has led to an increase in sales of low-testosterone treatments, in some cases with no evidence of a medical condition.  In addition, the article states that we "don’t know all the possible long-term side effects that could be linked to hormone treatment for men."

Almost a year ago the subject was “Caution on Dietary Supplements."  From Consumer Reports we read of the dangers of Viagra-like supplements.  They contain some of the active ingredients of the prescription medicine "or other risky chemicals" without the same oversight, warnings or safety testing of prescription drugs.

Then, early last month my “Death of Retirement” posting anticipated this recent warning from NPR that “retirement as we know it may be consigned to the dustbin of history.”

Finally, I passed along important information in April about myths being spread about the supposed dangers of vaccinating children, how parents ignore scientific evidence while relying on erroneous information from friends, relatives and social networks.   This is confirmed by a story of New Zealand parents who “thought they had made an informed choice not to vaccinate their children, but after their son ended up in intensive care with a tetanus infection they realised they had made a terrible mistake.”

The behavioral model is not complex and it usually leads to the right conclusions.  Too few people pay attention to it, relying on gut instinct, or expecting politicians to solve the problems we create for ourselves.  Just the other day I overheard a young adult make the statement, “I hate hangovers,” as he complained of a headache.  Of course we all know that this person does not really hate hangovers.  If he did, he would do something about it, change his behavior.  It’s the simple behavior–consequence link, but many people just don’t get it.  They make spending, voting and other decisions that keep our country heading in the wrong direction while the rest of us sit by helplessly watching as we must all live with the consequences.


Added June 17, 2013:  I made the point back in July 2011 and again in March 2012 that bankers are smarter than the government when it comes to business and finance.  They react to new regulations with new policies or fees, forcing the government to come back later with more regulations.  It’s a vicious cycle.  So a few days ago another large bank restricted free checking.  The article states:  “New regulations limiting overdraft and interchange fees have led many banks to eliminate free checking or raise their fees.”

Perspective and Sports

Big news at the end of the week was the investigation into doping in Major League Baseball.  A question that never makes the news is why we make sports so important in our lives.  People will tell you that the most important things to them, what they hold dear, include values like:  family, faith, health, a good education and safe environment for their children, freedom, friendship and loyalty, integrity, and security.  These are what they say are important to them and should play a role in making decisions and setting priorities.

Then along come our favorite sports teams, and people will ignore family, glued to the television, allowing the outcome of a game to affect their mood for the rest of the day.  There must also be a winner and a loser.  Ties are not acceptable, so professional sports and the NCAA go to great lengths to develop tie-breaking rules.  Even in high school where sports should be a vehicle for teaching sportsmanship, character building, and teamwork, ties are not acceptable.  A coach who doesn’t deliver a winning season for a few years is run out of town.  The stars play while the rest sit on the bench – presumably building character.  We have read about recent examples of recreational sports referees being attacked by players and spectators.

We see professional athletes not as entertainers, but as heroes.  We buy products and favor brands based only on their word.  We pay half a house payment for tickets, parking and concessions so they can collect millions of dollars for throwing, batting or catching.  When athletes use drugs to help them perform better, to entertain us better, we feel betrayed.  When they can't live up to the hero status, we are shocked.  The league officials and even Congress investigate to punish the culprits and clean up the game.  This is only a problem because we have enough time and money to indulge in this luxury, elevating it to an exalted level of interest and importance – if most people didn’t care, it wouldn’t make the news.  If we refused to pay more than $6 per ticket instead of $60 and up, so they are paid thousands instead of millions, how many athletes would be willing to risk their health or their lives by taking performance-enhancing drugs?  

We can complain about teachers having the most important jobs and being paid less than entertainers, but the pay of each is driven by how much value we put on each based on our willingness to spend or be taxed.  It’s exactly the outcome we have chosen. 

Our real values are not what we say they are; they are reflected in our behavior.  In this case, perhaps they are investigating the wrong side of the equation.