Theoretically, it might seem that it is utterly relevant want the gender of a child’s parents might be, so lo long as the child is loved by her or his parents. But this works only if one supposes that, in terms of their displays of affection, adult females and males bring exactly the same thing to parenting or, in any case, the differences are negligible. And it is hardly obvious that the differences are negligible. What is more, it is anything but obvious that we should want the differences to be negligible.
While at the Syracuse, NY airport the other day, I watched a father affectionately caress his son (in his late teens). What is manifestly clear to me, as I recall that moment, is that a mother’s display of affection would have been rather different. It was a moment of tenderness; yet it was masculine in every way. Had the mother of the teenage soon behaved in a like manner, I would have thought that she was rather cold or merely feigning affection.
Now, if the difference between feminine and masculine forms of affection means so very much for we who are adults, then why would we think for a moment that the difference does not matter to children. No gay or straight person would ever argue that how the affection received is expressed does not matter just so long as what is received in the end is affection.
What may very well be one of the most important learning experiences in a child’s life could turn out to be none other than the difference between a mother’s affection and a father’s affection. The affections of a mother stand as one of the windows through which a child experiences and learns about the world. The affections of a father stand as a completely difference window through which the child experiences and learns about the world.
And as I watched a mother talking her daughter on the Paris metro this afternoon, the observation in the preceding paragraph about female-male differences in their expression strike me as ever the more plausible. While it may very well be that circumstances, such as death, may prevent a child from having both, it seems fundamentally misguided to suppose that having both does not count as the ideal towards which we should strive.
On any given day, there is a study about the effects of some prescription pill or over-the-counter medication or vitamin. Indeed, any of these may be subject to several studies over the years.
Yet, when it comes to raising children and the role of both a mother and a father, we seem to be more than content with a clever argument or, even worse, a mere rhetorical dismissal. In fact, the following argument is, in the absence of additional premises, fallacious:
From the fact that there is nothing whatsoever morally wrong with what I do, it thereby follows that what I do will not have in any way a deleterious impact upon my children
I travel between Syracuse, NY and Paris, France with enormous frequency. There is absolutely no wrong in what I do. Yet, if I had children in their developmental years (say, 4-14), it would turn out that the morally acceptable lifestyle that I live would be most inappropriate for them, since the travelling would be a serious impediment to the children developing the kinds of bonds and friendships that are part and parcel of their growing years.
Here is a rather profound fact: No child who has grown up with the experience of both a loving mother and a loving father thinks for a moment that the difference between the ways in which the two express their affection was and is utterly inconsequential. This fact should give us pause. Yet it is this fact over which we are so quick to run roughshod.
And this is so very much a Dr. Laura point. Adults seem to be so concerned with their own satisfaction that they are unwilling to give much serious thought as the impact that their proposed behavior would have upon the child. It seems to suffice that a bunch of adults exclaim with great conviction that the child will not be harmed.
By contrast, let someone propose a new shopping center or traffic light; and the proposal will immediately necessitate a study, just to make sure that no serious damage will be wrought to the community. If this is not a serious indication of how warped our values have become, then I do not know what might be. Propose a shopping center, be prepared for a study. By contrast, we make also sorts of changes in how we treat our children; and without any form of study, these changes are readily accepted as social progress. Get a change involving children to fly under the banner of social progress, and we seem to become drunk with implementing it. Suggest a change that might have an adverse effect upon the value of homes, and that will require a study.
There is the following saying: A society is judged by how it treats its weak. None are more weak than children. And what is manifestly clear is that we are morally than willing to sacrifice children for our pet ideas of social progress. Indeed, we are more interested in preserving the value of our homes than the psychological wholesomeness of our children.
What more proof do we need that society is going to hell in a hand-basket—that we have become entirely misguided with respect to our moral priorities?
The affections of a mother and the affections of a father, although two marvelous manifestations of affection, are hardly without deep and profound differences that every child welcomes, appreciates, and basks in.
