Why Dad’s Side of the Family Tends to Miss Out

https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2023/05/mother-kinkeeping-roles-women-family-network/674039/

by throw0101b • 3 years ago

15 29 3 years ago

theatlantic.com

throw0101b• 3 years ago

https://archive.is/TJxKL

https://archive.today/TJxKL

ftxbro7• 3 years ago

This almost feels like a troll article, never even mentioning the possibility of infidelity. So OK I mentioned it now. Was I baited to do it?

EDIT: downvote me if you want but every anthropologist will agree

wewtyflakes2• 3 years ago

Anyone can cheat, what does that have to do with the information in the article? The article provided sources. Do you contest the data or methodology?

ftxbro7• 3 years ago

In case you really didn't see my point, it's that it's easier to tell that the mom's side of the family is really the mom's side of the family, than that the dad's side of the family is really the dad's side of the family, biologically speaking. This gives an obvious cultural-evolutionary reason that many would be 'closer' to the mom's side of the family. It's not about whether men cheat more than women or whether women cheat more than men, and it's not making any kind of normative or moral judgement on anyone.

jasmer2• 3 years ago

Mother is more likely to be a biological parent, yes, but that's not going to be it. The kid certainly won't know.

It's 'Mother Tongue' nor 'Father Tongue'. Women raise the children, they're more likely to raise them with their family members as well.

Geography plays a role: every married guy I know lives 3 streets over from his mother in law, I think actually it's more common for couples to be near the woman's family.

I suggest this is one of those kinds of things, if you were around 100 years ago, would be kind of dead obvious to most people.

svnt• 3 years ago

The kid certainly won’t know.

The point of evolutionary framing is not that we have evolved to think about these things, but that they are biologically ingrained such that they incline our entire experience of living without conscious thought.

Geography plays a role

I believe the article states the opposite is true: more children live closer to their paternal grandparents. I was surprised.

cafard• 3 years ago

Seriously? My next-door neighbor lives the other side of the US from his mother in law. We lived about one hundred miles from my mother in law, and my father lived at closest about two hundred miles from my maternal grandfather.

Where do you live that all the married guys live so close to their wives' families?

skissane• 3 years ago

Geography plays a role: every married guy I know lives 3 streets over from his mother in law, I think actually it's more common for couples to be near the woman's family.

In terms of physical distance, our order is: (1) my father, (2) her mother, (3) her father, (4) my mother. None of them are that close – my father is about an hour away; for her mother, add about 10 minutes; for her father, add 20; my mother lives 3–4 hours away. At least they are all in the same general direction.

In terms of how much we see them, the order is: (1) my father, (2) her mother (although only a little bit less than my father), (3) my mother (a lot less than either), (4) her father (we haven't seen him in > 18 months)

Seeing her mother more than her father, and seeing my father more than my mother, is mainly due to the quality of relationship each of us has with the respective parent.

jasmer2• 3 years ago

Replying to my own comment, while this doesn't show distance, it does show behaviour:

"Maternal grandmothers were significantly more inclined than paternal grandfathers and grandmothers to maintain frequent face-to-face contact, as distance between grandparent and grandchild increased. " [1]

[1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14747049070050...

ftxbro7• 3 years ago

I can't edit my original comment anymore, but my point in calling the article a troll is that an 'obvious' explanation for the phenomenon is some evolutionary reasons. Evolutionary reasons for human behavior are icky and unpalatable. We don't like to think of evolutionary explanations for feelings like love or hate or tribalism or to think of our biological or cultural evolution. The troll part comes in, where the article doesn't even acknowledge such a possibility, even to argue against it, maybe because they didn't want to be associated with any icky idea even by a mere mention and even if they are not supporting it.

I'll put an example of what the article sounds like if you have any education in anthropology like even college anthropology 101. The article sounds like one about a "hometown sports hero" who between junior and senior years somehow doubled their weight and bench pressing and began informally beating world records of weight lifting. Then the article goes on to give possible reasons for this difference like maybe they got strong support from their school and community and they are doing hard training and eating healthy food or maybe they are growing to become an adult or whatever. Anyway, almost any reader would think hmm maybe they are doing some steroids. That would be an example of the kind of 'troll article' that I meant. They avoid saying the obvious thing, even to refute it, because many would consider the idea as icky.

martindbp• 3 years ago

You're right, and I believe "How the mind works" by Pinker goes over this and the evidence for it. It makes perfect sense for grandparents to pour more resources into grandkids who are 100% certain to be yours. There are plenty of other similar phenomena that are determined by the estimated genetic overlap, like domestic abuse/violence is almost entirely between genetically unrelated people, i.e. between spouses, step parents and their step children etc. The more related the less violence.

TinkersW• 3 years ago

I was also surprised they didn't mention it as it seemed like an obvious reason.

Grandparents logically would be biased toward grandchildren via a daughter since odds of it actually being your grand child are higher. (maybe you say you wouldn't care, but many would).

lockhouse• 3 years ago

I think modern American society puts lower value on Dads in general. Unless the mom is in prison, she will probably get custody. It is just assumed that it will be better for the kids to spend more time around their mother. Look at nearly all family TV shows and movies…Dad’s a bumbling idiot always screwing up and Mom comes to the rescue.

moi2388• 3 years ago

Even though funnily enough not having a father is related to more issues later in life than not having a mother. Also, 90% of all child abuse is done by the mother.. but yeah..

ntlk• 3 years ago

Do you have a reference for the 90% stat?

andromeduck2• 3 years ago

It used to be the exact opposite until a prominent journalist got burned and made it her mission to flip the problem instead of fixing it. Originally the presumptuon was for children under 7 but eventually got extended to 16.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tender_years_doctrine

shreyansh_k• 3 years ago

I think there is strong observation bias here. This might be true for Americans... And maybe even Westerners, but in Asian countries, especially South Asia, people are more close with the paternal side of the family.

For example: myself, a sample of n=1, I'm more involved with my paternal family then the maternal side of the family

jchallis• 3 years ago

A good rule of thumb : a son is a son until he gets a wife, but a daughter is a daughter for all her life. This article is a corollary.

ftxbro7• 3 years ago

it rhymes so i cant argue

Why Dad’s Side of the Family Tends to Miss Out

Related Stories