One of the exam questions for a 3 year old nursery 1 boy is: Who pays
your school fees? Now, in the social awareness class, the pupils had
been taught the family and the ‘roles’ of each member. Daddy’s role is
to pay school fees. But there is a problem. This boy’s father is a not a
responsible man. The boy’s education (and that of his older one) has
been the responsibility of the mother. To his exam question, at first,
the boy replied that father pays his school fees (according to what he
had been taught). After a moment, he corrected himself, and said mother
pays school fees. His teacher pondered his response and marked him
correct anyway!
Although in most urban families, school fees come
from both parents, teaching that father pays fees is meant to introduce
his role as provider to little children. Some may criticize such social
awareness curriculum as parochial and not updated enough to reflect
‘modern day reality’. They ask, ‘what if the child is a raised by a
single parent—mother?’ But we must recall that for little children we
must keep it simple; no complications and complexities. It is this
‘modern day reality’ that is the concern.
If a phenomenon occurs
only very rarely, it can be discounted and we can safely generalize the
vast majority. We teach children that humans have 5 fingers per hand.
But we also know that some babies were born with 6 fingers in one or
both hands. We don’t bother to teach this because such happens so
rarely. The ‘problem’ with teaching little children that, “father pays
school fees”, is that the contrary is becoming common—Irresponsible
husbands, baby mama phenomenon, divorcee, and worst of all, LGBT. On the
whole, homes are becoming broken and more broken. The forces
fragmenting families are remorseless—they won’t abate as far as I can
see. To have a working love-filled family is becoming an exception
rather than the rule.
There is no way we can wish away the crisis
in family life. The implications of this crisis affects us every day.
Children must be born. If they are unfortunate to be brought up in a
dysfunctional setting, the world has added to the number of potential
mischief-makers. Potential money ritualist. Potential terrorist.
Potential child rapist. Potential treasury looter.
The cases of
irresponsible husbands/fathers are now alarming. They are comfortable
that the woman is the breadwinner and are not eager to end the
imbalance. Some of them even maltreat the poor woman sweating to provide
for the household. In some cases the wife comes to a point where she
can no longer put up with his irresponsible behaviour and off she
goes—separation or divorce.
Irresponsibility in a man is not
first a financial fact. It is primarily a state of mind. Refusal to
provide for the family is the outshoot. At the same time, a man could be
able to provide for his ‘dependencies’ and yet be irresponsible. Many
young music stars have about 4 baby mamas—4 children from 4 women and
married to none! Since they are millionaires sending money to these
children’s mothers is no big deal. But money won’t provide internal
security to the children; it won’t be a source of guidance; it won’t
give that heart-felt love that emanates from a father to his children.
Several
research has shown that children who are raised by 2 parents, who are
both responsible and dedicated, usually perform well in school. Not only
that, the risk for emotional and behavioural problems are lower among
children in 2-parent households on average. Crime statistics show that
people from stable families are much less likely to be involved in crime
than those from fragmented homes.
As much as it indeed better
for a child to be raised in a 2-parent family, there is a caveat. They
must both be responsible and dedicated. In some cases it is much better
to be raised by a single parent than some 2-parent households. A
household that has an abusive husband/father is damaging to the psyche
of any child. Spouse violence, either mutual or one-sided, could lead to
depression and low self-esteem in children.
The good old
traditional family is one in which the father takes responsibility for
his family. He looks out for the wife and children. In short, he is the
head of the family. Now, does that mean he must out earn his wife? No,
not necessarily. If husband is a teacher and wife is a medical doctor,
all things being equal, wife would earn more than her man; or a
situation in which the man is (temporarily) unemployed while the wife
has a job. But this financial fact should not prevent him from taking
responsibility for his wife and children. This awkward situation in
which the man is not a contributor to the family upkeep can be very
trying. This has led to many marital breakups. Some women believe that
once they earn more than their husbands they get ‘promoted’ to headship
of the family. But if managed wisely this situation could result in
greater mutual respect for each other. The man may use this period to
discover others way of showing love to his wife apart from providing
money. And hopefully when he starts to earn again, he still continues in
his hard times discoveries.
There is no need to discuss
homosexual unions. Children raised in such places are denied an
essential component of our common humanity. It would never result in a
good outcome.
Share your thoughts