Family - #401 - #03 – What’s a “father”?

(Sperm donors are NOT fathers.)

Now, how about “What’s a father?”

May I define “a father”?
A “father” should include considerations of the following:
a. Does the “sperm” donor have to be “the father”? Can a “father” not be a “sperm donor”? Is the “giver of the beginning of life” just that …. “the giver of the beginning of life” … and not necessarily anything more? Does mere biology determine a “father”?
b. Should a “father” be just a “provider” or a “protector”? Or, should he be both? Can a “non- provider or a non-protector be a good “father”?
c. Should a “father” be a husband and a father? Should one side be more important than the other? How do you balance the two?
d. Doesn’t “father” denote a special relationship with children? Would you agree that “husband” denotes a special relationship with a “wife”? Well, what is included as part of this “special relationship with children”?
e. Let’s make an attempt to list some of the ideas included in this “special relationship”:
1. A father can give an appropriate physical, “touchy/ feely” masculine contact to a child.
2. A father can give a warm appropriate “masculine” presence to a child. The child feels the difference between female and male. Animals recognize the difference. What if the child never feels a warm “masculine” presence? Is there a deficiency? Is it meaningful?
3. A father can share his past experience in a special way. This “special relationship” means a great deal. It makes communication more personal, less a matter of “facts and impersonal information”.
4. A father can give a child another point of view, another “slant” on things different from his other parent or acquaintance. Because of this “special relationship”, this communication may have a deeper meaning …may have more importance. This “special relationship” can give a different kind of communication than an “outsider”. (Note: The success of this depends on the abilities, desires, motivation , and intellect of the so-called “father”!!)
f. What if there is “NO” father? What is lost? What, if anything, can replace a “father”? (That’s certainly something to, at least, consider!)

Now, do you think the definition of a “father” is so simple. Doesn’t it seem obvious that this word requires deep consideration … consideration from many sides ….many points of view!!! It certainly is not obvious what a father might be to you!!! How about to someone else!!!

******************
And that’s just about a “father”!!
How about the difference between a “man” and a “father”?

May I try to define a “man”?

A “man”, just a “man”, should include considerations of the following:
a. “Just a man” indicates “maleness” but no apparent “special relationship”.
b. “Just a man” indicates certain generally accepted “male” traits such as : physical strength and “combativeness”, provider, protector, gruffness, competitive etc. But suppose “this particular man” is not particularly “physical or combative” or competitive? Is he less of a man? Or, is he just a “different” man? ….Hmmmm!
c. “Just a man” may have many different desires according to the “man” in question. Yes! ….. “BUT ALL men are…….” … Really??

Could it be that each “man” could be slightly different? That “each man” could still be a “man” but be different?
Could it be that a generalization of “a man” is overly simple … meaningless? Should we even use the term except in the most non-specific context?
Could it be that “oversimplification” really means “labels” and “labels” do not add to understanding!!

“A man” is simpler to define than a “father”.
That’s true!
But it’s still not “simple”!!