By Warren Farrell, Ph.D. (www.warrenfarrell.com)
For more depth, see In The Best Interests of the Child and Father And Child ReunionThe Unspoken—and often Unconscious—Contributions of Dads
Prior to doing the research for Father and Child Reunion, I knew dads were more likely to play, coach and roughhouse with their children. I did not know that in comparison to children raised by single moms, children raised by single dads are more likely to be assertive without being aggressive. (My expectation was that rough-housing might contribute to aggressiveness, not assertiveness.) Assertiveness without aggressiveness is one of the key qualities to being successful in work and life. It leads to better social skills and more friends; more self-confidence and less depression; less acting out…
I was similarly surprised to discover that children raised by single dads are more empathetic. We usually think of empathy as something transmitted via the mother. Yet, in study after study, no matter what the family structure, the amount of time a father spends with a child is one of the strongest predictors of empathy in adulthood.
Empathy is the key to love: I’ve never heard someone say, “I want a divorce; my partner understands me”. Children who don’t feel understood seek another world at the point of a needle; join gangs or cults to get the respect they didn’t get at home, or just disappear into a bottle. Even at work, it is rare for us to sue someone from whom we feel empathy.
Is there a connection between what dad does and these outcomes? No one can be 100% sure, but a blend of research and careful observation offer important clues. Say dad and son Jimmy are rough-housing, and dad has Jimmy playfully “pinned down”. If Jimmy has no experience, he might poke, pull or punch his way to “freedom”. So dad teaches Jimmy to be assertive (use leverage, fake-out, etc), not aggressive. Once he’s taught Jimmy, he gives him a second chance. However, if Jimmy returns to his poke-punch behavior, dad is likely to say, “okay, no more” and walk away.
What just happened?
First, dad was teaching Jimmy two things: to also think of dad’s needs, and to make distinctions between assertiveness and aggressiveness.
Second, by returning to play after he taught Jimmy, he was giving Jimmy the opportunity to see if he had mastered the lesson– not in theory, but in real life: that is, once the real-life emotions of excitement and temptation-to-win re-enter the picture.
Third, dad’s willingness to walk away (versus continuing rough-housing) was dad’s way of respecting Jimmy’s ability to absorb the lesson if it was in his interest to do so. Therefore, if Jimmy’s response to his dad walking away is a temper tantrum, dad resists giving in (e.g., he resists rewarding the tantrum with “oh, okay, one more chance”) and also ups the consequences (“one more word, no ice cream”), making it apparent to Jimmy that terrorism is also not in his best interest.
When it comes to the development of empathy, dads tend to create a simple choice for the child: think of my needs, or don’t get your needs met. Thinking of another’s needs is the beginning of empathy. Dad was teaching Jimmy that empathy pays—empathy is for winners. He uses that same formula for teaching anything: align the child’s self interest with the child’s long-term best interest.
This contrasts with mom’s greater likelihood to not rough-house to begin with, therefore depriving mom and Jimmy both of the bond of physicality, excitement and laughter, and the incentive to give more or less of that to Jimmy based on his willingness to learn. Were mom around when dad was about to begin rough-housing, she’d be more likely to establish limits—”do it outside, wait till the daytime, put on sneakers and a jacket”—so often it doesn’t happen.
Were mom watching when dad walked away from Jimmy, and Jimmy responded with a temper tantrum, mom would be more likely to complain to the dad, “honey, you got Jimmy all excited, what do you expect?”
Were mom teaching Jimmy when he wasn’t paying attention, she would be more likely to repeat what she said. If Jimmy continued to ignore his mom, his mom would be likely to threaten deprivation, but be less likely to follow-through (she might even walk away, but then respond to the temper tantrum by giving Jimmy another chance).
Giving Jimmy another chance reflects mom’s empathy for Jimmy. However, once Jimmy learns that the temper tantrum, crying, or complaining to mom that “daddy hurt me,” could pay off with a reduction of the consequences, Jimmy begins focusing on which method he can use to reduce the consequences—meaning Jimmy remains focused on his own needs, not someone else’s. As a result, Jimmy’s empathy doesn’t develop. His focus on how he can reduce the consequences distracts him from empathy. Being given multiple chanceswithout consequences gives him little incentive to stretch himself to his next developmental level.
Dad is more likely to encourage Jimmy to do risk-taking while he plays the role of guide and safety net. But few dads explain to mom that risk-taking is a crucial ingredient of success: it helps children discover what they can achieve, experiment with which methods of assertion work, and thus increases a child’s I.Q. Children who take risks with parents as guides and safety nets stretch themselves, build self-confidence and are more prepared to individuate and enter the world of work.
As children get older, dad-the-rough-houser often evolves into dad-the-coach. Here, the most important lessons seem to come from team sports–not gymnastics or tennis, but a sport in which almost every play requires co-operation to win. A basketball player who shoots without passing to a teammate who might have a better shot is soon ostracized. Team play’s “teachers” are the success or failure of each play; the ostracism or praise of each peer. So the dad who is the coach—or the parent who encourages team sports— is handing the child over to the world to experience how cooperation creates success in the world rather than learn it via lecture. To learn this while creating lasting childhood memories is a blessing. Indirectly, it is the gift of dad-as-coach, or dad as encourager. It is something every mom can do, but something dads tend to do.
Dad’s fun-and-games approach turns out to be a lot more than fun-and- games. Once a dad invests a child in the excitement of becoming a winner in a sport, the child is able to hear what would otherwise be seen as criticism or the destruction of self-esteem as coaching and preparation for being a winner.
While it is easier to see the value of dad in the development of a son, his involvement is in many ways more uniquely valuable in thedevelopment of a daughter. Why? A son raised by mom alone may at least be encouraged by peers or a step-dad to learn the lessons of empathy, assertiveness, and team sports; a daughter raised by mom alone is less likely to have peers guide her with the proper safety nets, and even a step-dad is more likely to be constrained by mom’s limitations on his risk-taking when it comes to her daughters.
Those of us who have dads who grew up in the depression know that no matter how rich our dads became they always had a “money wound”. Children today who grow up without dad’s values and contributions being in balance with mom’s will, no matter how much love they receive, always have a “father wound.” These children will be missing more than dad’s contribution. They will be missing the half of themselves that is their dad. This is the real father and child reunion.
I was similarly surprised to discover that children raised by single dads are more empathetic. We usually think of empathy as something transmitted via the mother. Yet, in study after study, no matter what thefamily structure, the amount of time a father spends with a child is one of the strongest predictors of empathy in adulthood.
Empathy is the key to love: I’ve never heard someone say, “I want a divorce; my partner understands me”. Children who don’t feel understood seek another world at the point of a needle; join gangs or cults to get the respect they didn’t get at home, or just disappear into a bottle. Even at work, it is rare for us to sue someone from whom we feel empathy.
Is there a connection between what dad does and these outcomes? No one can be 100% sure, but a blend of research and careful observation offer important clues. Say dad and son Jimmy are rough-housing, and dad has Jimmy playfully “pinned down”. If Jimmy has no experience, he might poke, pull or punch his way to “freedom”. So dad teaches Jimmy to be assertive (use leverage, fake-out, etc), not aggressive. Once he’s taught Jimmy, he gives him a second chance. However, if Jimmy returns to his poke-punch behavior, dad is likely to say, “okay, no more” and walk away.