Child without father
It all depends on the particulars, details and conditions of the existence of a particular family. However, often the solution to the question “whether it is possible to raise a child without a father” is based on two extremes, on two roots of incorrect mutually exclusive beliefs, which our society, including other specialists, operates in the most (depending on the situation).
The first postulate: “A child needs a father. Without a father, children will not grow up full”
In principle, of course, this is not without a common sense, but that’s precisely in principle. When you begin to move to specific situations, it’s time to panic at your head: this conviction is so severe. Yes, a tragedy when a child grows without a father. But there is still a big tragedy when children grow up with a really strange father who does not understand and does not respect their mother and does not love the children themselves.
Families are very often found that families and families can hardly be called in the full sense of the word – the community of two completely different people, each of whom has its own life, who live like neighbors in a close communal, interfering with each other, terrorizing each other and humiliating … But often these families, when talking to them about the prospects of divorce, are genuinely scared: “How can we divorce? We have children … We have to live together for the sake of children, children need a father!”
But in fact, does the child need such, with the permission to say, “daddy” who, in the eyes of a child, impatiates with his mother, and even raises her hand? Or worse, the Cold War has long been between the pope and mother, and this dad tries to keep silent and indifferent, as the same neighbor in the communal, does not notice the presence of a de facto former girlfriend of life and children; he is indifferent to all their problems and cares … What’s the point in such fathers! Why, for the sake of preserving the children of such a pope, the mother should – no, not live with him together – to tolerate him, because in most cases the long existence of two actually other people is not cloudless? Why, not aging, as a rule, a woman must “be married” legally and alone in fact, why does she deprive herself of being free and happy and sharing her own happiness with her children? Because “children need a father”. Paraphrasing the great Ozerov: no, we do not need such a father! Indeed, when such a daddy is kept “for the sake of children”, and the dad can be a snobbler, an alcoholic, and an elemental sadist, most of all, from the communication with such a father suffer children precisely … It is better not to have a father than one that threatens safety baby
And it does not at all save the situation of the desperate step of the mother, when she, nevertheless having decided to divorce her and her father-in-law and the children husband and father, literally, in a few days after the divorce, drawing his head in a new marriage: anyway, with whom, but mainly because, that “the children still need a father”. And, making a hasty selection (and sometimes just grabbing literally the first counter), she comes to the same rake, as in the first marriage. As a result, his stepfather may even be worse than his father, especially since children sometimes appear to him already after the registry office.
Dear moms, do not hurry with a repeat choice! You will always have time to step on the same rake twice if you are striving for it. If you get married for the second time “for the sake of children,” then let your new husband before marriage make at least friends with these children. But in fact, to choose a husband should be exclusively “for your sake”. After all, those few months or even years that you will be looking for a new spouse will not change anything in terms of the absence of the father’s children. And if you still meet a person who will love you with your children, besides, they will find a common language with them – then you will be happy, and the children will get a real dad. Do not choose a father for children, but a husband for yourself.
Second postulate: “Father does not need a child at all. Mother can completely replace him.”
It seems to me, this conviction, which gives me extreme feminism a lot, came up with women who were tired of our social patriarchy. They are tired of it, that in men and women in the society and in the family decisive words. Then they decided to beat the patient himself: “But we are able to give birth and to feed the children! And once we are able to give birth, then we can grow and we can, too, and without you, experienced lame males!” That is, everything happens because of the fictitious but eternal enmity between the two sexes. And a woman who thus defends his “independence” does not really understand elementary psychological laws and is mistaken at least three times.
First of all. Of course, it is always better when the child is brought up by both the mother and the father. Please note, I do not specify the sex of a child, although I also had to hear such opinions: they say, the boy needs a father, and the girl will do without it … A girl who grew up without a father will have serious problems in dealing with men. In other words, the strong sex for a long time will remain incomprehensible for such a girl, his representatives will scare and repel their alienation; she will react to their actions completely inadequate, and when he will hear the advice “understand your husband, listen