Talk:Father

Oh come on

This article could really use a complete rewrite. We have barely any (if any) mention of a father's relationship with his children and developmental consequences thereof (except as an "authority figure"), society's expectation of fathers, responsibilaties of fathers in different cultures, etc. etc. What we do have in the third paragraph: "According to Deleuze, the father authority exercises repression over sexual desire." This is just embarassing. Then halfway through the article the Christians get their turn to make it even more confusing. This could be the worst wikipedia entry I've seen yet. Would someone rewrite this?

I have to agree - and I'm an enthusiastic reader of Deleuze. It seems like a juvenile understanding of Lacanian theory wed to a version of feminist critique that has well outlasted its sell-by date. There are valid observations about the relationship between paternal authority and repression to be made, but this is done so ham-fistedly as to be almost a caricature. The best solution may be to excise most of this kind of cultural-anthropological material (even if it were done well), or move it down to the bottom of the entry. 207.151.225.19 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Add your academic sources to the article, if you have any.--SummerWithMorons (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

An academic source does not redeem a contribution that is irrelevant. Reference to a critical theorist like Deleuze is not the same as academic "sourcing" of any type, either. We could litter the article with references liked "According to Aristotle..." "According to Heidegger..." "According to Kristeva..." etc. without having added anything except noise. I would agree to either a section within the article about the conceptual history of "fatherhood" in which everything from neoconservative screeds against single mothers to pseudo-Lacanian banter about the "name of the Father" could find some NPOV mention. Before asking anyone to add academic sources, it is appropriate to ask what the scope and role of the article itself should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.225.19 (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The article scope is that of scholar literature, not the editors personal opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.44.97.210 (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"Scholar literature"? Your statement is barely coherent. Do you know what the word "scope" means? - Undoing your undo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.48.12 (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Religious title

I think there's a few other religious denominations that refer to male priests as Father besides Roman Catholics and the Orthodox churches, but I am not 100% sure which ones they are. If anyone else knows what other religions use that title with their priests please feel free to add that. JesseG 04:23, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

From personal contacts, I'm almost 100% certain Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism are not among those faiths who require its followers to address others as their fathers. --Menchi 06:32, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

So glad this has been mentioned - the religious section is so Christian-dominated that it's just not very useful. Don't know enough to edit it myself, unfortunately, but coverage of other cultures would be fantastic. --DreamsReign 01:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If the section is only about Christianity, then it should be headed "Christianity" instead of "Religion." Jonathan Tweet 15:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed the heading to "Christianity" as suggested Daviticus82 19:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Strictly speaking the word "religion" has two aspects: it means rebinding, to re-connect; since man, also as we know him now was disconnected from God in the begining: Christ came and rebind us to God or re-connect us back to His Father(GOD) is the reason why Christianity can strictly be called a "religion."  . .because there can only be one God who created us and is the object of our termination: then there is the virtue "religion" an inner tendency or inclination of man to worship something higher, a supreme being, God put it there in order for us to find Him, not gods but the one true God. . . in this sense we normally refer to the virtue of religion as "worship." now to worship or to honor which designate God's sovereignity over us another god instead of the one true God is not really a religion or a religious act because it is the privilege of the one God, and that's why other religions the word loosely used is not at all valid, it's like  body without the soul.

Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.97.14 (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"Surprise father"

Is that a real established term? [1] Google has only 600 hits, and most aren't even related to it, as defined in this article. --Menchi 07:19, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is a real, established status which emphasises the psychological impact of discovering that he is the father of a grown-up child. The currency of the expression is to be found mainly in magazine and newspaper articles featuring 'people stories'. For example, the UK TV presenter Peter Snow apparently discovered he had fathered a kid in his wayward youth only many years afterwards. (Query: Perhaps there should be another term to describe celebrities who refuse to accept they have fathered a child - such claims not being uncommon.) The Google test here is not conclusive. JPF 00:25, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The latest high profile example is John Mortimer. JPF 20:23, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Banketi

Where does that term for father come from? I lived in Germany for two years and speak German fluently. I have never heard anyone use "banketi" in reference to his or her father.

Could be Swiss German -- it contains lots of unique idioms and furthermore complicates matters by spelling them phonetically as they are pronounced in whichever Swiss German dialect they arose in. Lots of things ending in "-i" (esp. "-li" for diminutives) are Swiss German in origin. Any chance it's related to the hochdeutsch term "Baenkert"? 165.176.7.3 (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Relationship between father and son

This was added to the article: Especially in today's "politically correct" world, parental roles towards "mothering" and "fathering" have become less rigid and more "flexible." Otherwords, typical mothering roles can be taken on by the father, and fathering roles by the mother. But regardless of social context, the father possesses a unique relationship with his children: To sever the child's bond of maternal dependence, and lead the child into the world with responsibility and confidence.

In my opinion, this is more of an opinion than an encyclopedic sentence. I have removed it, but we may discuss here the convenience to keep it. What is more, there is the article Paternal bond which talks about this topic.

John C PI 22:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Split out the Christianity section?

The section on Christianity seems out of place in this article. For the use with God there's already God the Father. For use with priests it seems more relevant in a article on clergy or priestly nomenclature, if there is one. At any rate, the use of 'father' for biological father vs. a respectful title seem different enough to be in separate articles. How do other people feel? Tocharianne 01:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

just wondering if some peeps might have an issue with calling religions "cults"? i'm atheist, but i'm just wondering Shakespeare Monkey 11:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the section is a problem if it remains focused on christianity only. On the term "cult", that is the neutral anthropological term, while "religion" and "myth" have racist connotations.--SummerWithMorons 11:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Far be it from me to claim knowledge about anthropological terms, but I've never heard a religion referred to as a 'cult', at least not by a source without an axe to grind. On the other hand, I've yet to encounter a negative connotation of the term 'religion' in mainstream circles. I, like Hellznrg, am an atheist, but the heading struck even me as being rather... inflammatory. 64.38.189.183 00:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Non-human fatherhood

There was also a suggestion to merge non-human fatherhood here on that talk page. Tocharianne 01:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a bad idea, because father is tied to the Roman word Pater which is strictly a head-of-household, patriarchal human relationship and is much different from, say, a "father" turtle or sea otter. Besides that, though, "dad" and "daddy" redirect here, and an article about male parents of all species would be inappropriate for those search terms. 24.148.118.190 08:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Defined as male parent

The current revision says, "A father is defined as the male parent of an offspring.[citation needed]" The issue needing a citation should be clarified. It is clear that a male parent of an offspring is a father. What is not clear, without considerable source citations, is that only male parents of offspring can fit the definition of "father". What reliable sources state that one of two women raising a child cannot be, by some definition, the "father" of that child? (sdsds - talk) 00:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Fnah!! It is obvious that almost every dictionary will give a definition very close to ""A father is defined as the male parent of an offspring". Any definition vitally different would need a cite of sources. Lars T. 01:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

In societies where brothers all marry the same wife, who is the father of the wife's child? (sdsds - talk) 02:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Depending on the society, either all of them, or the biological father. Not some woman.Lars T. 16:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

So do we have concensus that in some cases, multiple people can each be the father of the same child? (sdsds - talk) 21:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There can even be more than one biological father, for that matter. Just what this has to do with the first sentence of the article is beyond me. Lars T. 23:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

To be crystal clear: you would support a change in the first sentence from "the male parent" to "a male parent"? If so, I encourage you to make that change, citing this conversation in the edit summary. (sdsds - talk) 23:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added a link to WordNet as a reference, which gives precisely the same definition as the article. What I really would like to ask: Why has a citation been requested in the first place? My point being, "father" in its biological meaning should be defined in a dictionary, not in an encyclopedia. The concept is pretty much known to everyone on this planet, so everyone should understand that meaning of the english word "father", once the translation has been given.Laschatzer (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Right! I don't think any editors dispute that 'a male whose sperm impregnated a mother who later gave birth' is a father. I think the controversy is around whether the reverse is true, i.e. that the scope of the Father article should be restricted to only this biological meaning. For example, must we always qualify an adoptive father with the term "adoptive", or can that person also be simply referred to as a "father". What about a situation where there was no formal adoption proceeding? Must we write, "acting as a father" in regards to this person? Or is he "really" a father too? Of course it is a slippery slope! Does it also require general societal acceptance of the fathering relationship? The easy example in this case: what if a mother refers to her female spouse as her child's "father?" Does it matter if the society in which they live rejects their notion of fatherhood? (sdsds - talk) 15:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Request a link

The Tufts University Child and Family WebGuide is a good resource on fathers. http://www.cfw.tufts.edu/topic/2/36.htm

The WebGuide is a directory that evaluates, describes and provides links to hundreds of sites containing child development research and practical advice. The WebGuide, a not-for-profit resource, was based on parent and professional feedback, as well as support from such noted child development experts as David Elkind, Edward Zigler, and the late Fred Rogers. Topics cover all ages, from early child development through adolescence. The WebGuide selects sites that have the highest quality child development research and that are parent friendly.

The fathers page of this site offers a wide variety of information about fathers and resources for fathers. Extensive research-based articles on issues surrounding fatherhood are presented, looking at absent fathers and father involvement issues, non-custodial and custodial single fathers, father-related policy issues, and more. The sites listed here offer substantial practical advice as well, on topics including responsible fathering, co-parenting, and healthy father involvement. Teamme 16:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What?

This is perhaps the worst written article on this site--underdeveloped, poor transitions, horrible intro, etc. I agree with the "Oh come on" comment--needs complete rewrite. Could someone do so? I would but I'm afraid I'll screw it up even worse.

What?

This is perhaps the worst written article on this site--underdeveloped, poor transitions, horrible intro, etc. I agree with the "Oh come on" comment--needs complete rewrite. Could someone do so? I would but I'm afraid I'll screw it up even worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.70.240 (talk) 02:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

This is atrocious. Why on earth are there 3 images that look like they are from family albums. They are very amature. Also, it is a little disturbing that they are all white. There is no need for this. I'm going to be bold and remove 2, and re-arrange to put the most professional looking image at the top. I'd gladly discuss this further and wouldn't mind if someone who disagrees with me reverts, but since there hasn't been discussion here since October, I'll try being bold now.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, I don't think the pair in the top photograph are white. But I would agree that the photos are problematic because there's no real indicator that these are fathers -they could be uncles, friends, the bottom shot could be a pre-school teacher, etc. And I don't think they add anything. Perhaps there are some shots available of classic father-child paintings or sculptures, if such exist. But honestly I'm a lot more concerned about the text - to me it's all over the place and very uneven. I think the subject deserves a lot better. Tvoz |talk 09:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

100% in agreement. Every single photo shows modern parents living in what can only be presumed to be high-technological societies with their children, which is incredibly specific and unrepresentative of fatherhood as a whole. This page is also totally human-centric and has no neutral point of view as concerns the species represented in the photos. Humanity should only have one photo represented, the rest should be left for the neverending list of other species which also have male-female sex and thus have fathers. Jeremyclarke (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Section about Madonna and her father

Pop singer Madonna often deals with the theme of the father in her work, for example the song "Oh Father" and "Papa Don't Preach", and on the American Life album she sings a song called "Mother and Father" which contains the lines: "My father had to go to work/ I used to think he was a jerk." And in an episode of Family Guy, a show fittingly about the importance of fathers, the father, Peter Griffin, discusses Madonna with his own father, saying, "With Madonna, it's all just about getting back at daddy." So, I think this article would be much improved to include a section about the importance of Madonna's relationship with her father Silvio Ciccone, and perhaps her relationship with brother Christopher Ciccone who has commented on the importance the father plays in Madonna's work. Thank you. -- Copy Editor (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does this page suck so much?

Who on earth wrote this? I mean its sucks so much, I didn't think something could write something so shitty. The writing is tedious and it meanders in content slowly drowning in its own shit while managing to sound seiously sexist at the same time. Some one needs to redo the whole thing its just that bad.

I agree. Obviously mashed-up by the usual crowd. I got lost at this point: "A common observation among scholars is that the authority of the father and of the [political] leader are closely intertwined, that there is a symbolic identification between domestic authority and national political leadership.[20] In this sense, links have been shown between the concepts of "patriarchal", "paternalistic", "cult of personality", "fascist", "totalitarian", "imperial"

Cult? Fascist? totalitarian? imperial? .......... this feminist shit and half the rest needs removing. Surely there is a rule against this sort of slagging? Goddessculture (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Baby Daddy

Why does Wikipedia want to cover up the phenomenon of the "baby daddy" by redirecting that topic to "fatherhood," which ignores the subject of baby daddies? This is an important sociological concept for the urban United States. Pockets of culture exist wherein the binary mother-father family, traditional in Judeo-Christian society, often gives way to a web of relationships; one mother could have several children by different fathers, each of whom could have several children by a different mother. Maybe we could have a separate section on fatherhood in the U.S. and explore the topic in moderate detail? 68.41.0.231 (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

==

Non-human fatherhood made a different entry

I am making research about horseracing and I stumbled across the word "sire", meaning a stallion whose offspring also races. I wanted to investigate further, but "sire" redirected me to this poor "father" entry. I believe that non-human fatherhood should have its own entry and fully agree with the previous comentaries about how this "father" entry should be totally rewritten.

I had a very similar experience with sire but from the humanzee page, which was explaining how portmanteau words that describe hybrid animals are decided (the 'sire' comes first in the name, the 'damme' after, so a humanzee must be a male human and a female chimpanzee). I think the linkage between sire and this article is the problem like you said, but I don't think the answer is a non-human fatherhood page. What the sire article needs to be is an explanation of whatever it is that characterizes the 'male' component of 'sex' among the species of earth. Humans are just one example of species that use binary genders as a means of reproduction and mutation for natural selection (siring), just as we are only one of the species that has a relationship between the parents and their offspring (father/fatherhood).

Both articles should be neutral about species and include humans as just one example. They should be differentiated based on what they describe about living things. If anything maybe sire should link to Sexual dimorphism instead of this article, as it is more likely to accurately describe the father-as-genetic-source relationship than this article, which is full of crap as other commenters have said. Jeremyclarke (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC).

Uniform Parentage Act definition of fatherhood

Given the existing of an edit war over the definition of fatherhood under the UPA, I've removed the entire uncited claim [2]. A quick search doesn't exactly support either wording as particularly accurate. There appears to be only one type of 'fatherhood' (or more accurate paternity) although the method of determining that does vary. A genetic test appears to be the ultimate possible method of determination, in other words the definition appears to be based on the genetic relationship not on sex. Nil Einne (talk) 06:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)