Men have "children because that is what the women want"

[uuu]

I follow this filmmaker named David Hoffman on YouTube, who posts (a lot) of documentary/PBS-style films from the American 1950s and 60s. His channel is a really interesting resource for learning about that particular cultural moment: both the obvious stuff like the hippies and civil rights activists and baby boomers, but also more marginal groups that don't come immediately to mind when we think of those decades.

Anyway, today he posted an interesting clip from a 1950s film that I guess is meant to encourage young couples to have children? But also not to rush into marriage? It's kind of hard for me to parse, to be honest, given the stilted mannerisms of films of the time.

But what really interested me were David's remarks about fatherhood and motherhood, from which I took the title of this thread:

This is a clip from a 1950s film intended to help young families. I do not know how it was shown. It was not shown to high school students at the subject matter is a bit sensitive. There was no way to reach married people via the Internet or even TV at that time. But as you may know, thousands of these films were made and I have collected many that represent the 1950s and 1960s, my time growing up.

I don't know what it is about having children but my opinion – just my opinion – is that men aren't all that interested even though they may act like they are. And some men say they are and I don't doubt their opinion. But my experience talking to my friends honestly like over a good stiff drink, is that having children because that is what the women want and because it does make for a family which many men do want.

When my children were infants I did my best to help but never felt that I was really fully able to do that. My wife took the responsibility because it seemed to be in her got – driving her jeans. Where I was doing what I thought was the right thing to do to help out.

Having children without marriage seems to me to be difficult but that just may be a generational thing. A good family is a wonderful thing and I came from one and I have one. So I know the value of children and the thrills and the memories all the way up until and through adulthood. The good stuff just keeps coming. But those early baby times? I think they're tough.

When my wife and I were having our first son, Henry, she showed me a "onesie (SP?)" and asked me what I thought of it. I really had no reaction. I barely knew what it was. Or what it did. She got furious. Six months pregnant and I showed no enthusiasm! Maybe I didn't want kids she said. Maybe I didn't want her she said. So I acted enthusiastic but really didn't have any emotion about looking at it. But I sure was happy that I was married to her so… I did my best.

With certainty I can say that having a child is one of the most emotional experiences in life. To deny the challenges as so many do by calling out all wonderful (usually after the fact) seems to me to be inaccurate and unfair to women. It is incredibly tough in those first few years. I honor every woman who has gone through the motherhood experience and continue to live life, love her mate, and raise a good child to become a good adult.

What do you think about this, especially the claim that men are not naturally inclined toward parenthood?

I also found the following comment very thought provoking and heartbreaking:

Mr. Hoffman, Your mentioning what guys might talk honestly about after a few stiff drinks as to having children more for the wife than a desire of there own causes me to share a personal part of my life. My father was a great guy and a good husband according to my mother in the early years of marriage. They did not have any children for the first three years. Now the following is a recount of what my mother discussed with me the last year of her life. She did pass away at 96. Her last year I would make an effort to go visit and spend 2-3 days with her and that's when she started to talk about her early year's of her marriage. When I was born the first of two my father abruptly changed. He never held his son and never fed him or changed a diaper. He resented the fact he was not my mom's first priority anymore. You see my dad had 5 older sisters and he was the baby of the family. They fawned over him, bought his clothes and he truly was the center of attention and was very handsome. It was like that until he went into the Marines during WW2. When he got out at the end of the war he met my mother. In my opinion my dad missed out on alot not having anything to do with his kids. Being disinterested and remote towards his kids continued our whole lives even when his son's became adults and lived on there own. I used to travel alot and I'd call the house to ask my mom to guess where I'm calling from, and if my dad answered I'd say Hi dad how are you? He'd say hang on I'll get your mother! Lol

Remarkably I don't hold any animosity towards him. I would not allow myself to carry that baggage. In closing I'd like to give an accurate description of what it was like to have a conversation with him, and my brother concurs because we've discussed this. Your sitting in the waiting room at the dentist office. The door opens and another patient comes in and sits down. A few minutes go by no magazines, no cell phone so you have a very shallow conversation about the weather or some other thing as the time crawls painfully by. That's the scenario of a conversation with my dad. When he died hundreds of people showed up at the funeral. He was not only " popular" but extremely intelligent. He worked full time at night for an airlines and went to Syracuse University full time and received two Master degrees,one in education and one in?... Ready? Child Psychology. Strange but true.. Ironic. LoL I could not make this up..

 

[Cornerstone]

Depends on the man I suppose. My mom says she always wanted kids and seems pretty sincere.

My dad said, whilst talking about his life generally, that he had kids because that's what you do at that age.

There was an old bit by Patrice O'Neill about men liking to have a woman around but not right there actually with them. I wonder could that be extended to family generally?

 

[Wyote]

I've known about as many men as I have women who were super into having kids, which is to say not many on either side.
More often it's been people who were just sorta kinda on board with the idea and then it just happened.

I suspect people who have weighted notions here simply don't know people of the opposite sex very well.
Granted, women are more into the particulars of raising children, whereas men are more interested in the idea of having a child.
So that may account for some discrepancies.

 

[John K]

It's hard to draw general conclusions from the 1950s and 60s gender role stereotypes. Very many women's destiny in life was a settled marriage and a home with children in those days - it was at the very heart of their security and their core purpose, and this gave them a fierce motive to get on with it. Which gave them a very different perspective on having children compared with men - the male equivalent destiny was an equally urgent need to find secure work and an income that would guarantee their independence and that of their own family when and if they had one. The media of the day reinforced these gender stereotypes by amplifying them in films, novels, etc, and they can look a bit like caricatures these days, but this cultural situation certainly distanced men from the child imperative.

I think it's hard to generalise though - my sister in law didn't seem to know when to stop having babies, and I think my brother was less keen because she put her health at risk - but he loves children once they are big enough to interact with more fully. I think this may well be a pattern - men are more nervous about what it means to have children, the big unknown at first on many different fronts because the whole state of your home life is completely changed. They don't have such a deep instinctive bond with very young babies as women do, but fall deeply in love with their kids once they are big enough to play with - even more so when they are big enough to go out for a pint with .

I wanted kids myself, but my wife became seriously psychologically ill about a year or so after our first was born, and I had to carry them both for a while, which meant that ours was not a typical path through the jungle.

I wonder how far men are influenced by having significantly younger brothers or sisters. I was nine years old when my youngest brother was born, and I loved playing with him - it's probably a miracle he lived to tell the tale. But that experience of living with a baby brother in the house meant I knew what to expect when I had my own children, and I certainly wasn't put off by fear of the unknown. Mind you my wife may have strong views on my competence all those years ago.

My younger son wanted kids all his adult life and seemed envious of friends who started families. He and his partner have two and a half year old twins now - that's slowed him down a bit

I don't know if the men in my family are typical - it seems to me that we are probably typical of men who have been brought up in stable long-term loving families. That's as much a luxury as anything else these days.

 

[Matty]

As a man, it's nice having family to provide for and do things for. I'm personally talking about my enjoyment of doing chores like cleaning gutters, mowing lawns, and sending some of my pay to grandparents and parents. I don't especially enjoy doing things or earning money for myself, but doing it to support others makes it ENJOYABLE.

In a few years I'll either end up married or a monk, and that enjoyment of working to benefit family will either be redirected towards my own wife and kids, or towards a more generalised common humanity sense of family.

I have to agree with some comments here, that family isn't principally about enjoying their company or talking with them for me, it's about having a satisfying sense of purpose. So having kids isn't intrinsically appealing to me, but I guess being a father, provider, and protector for my own kids is appealing.

 

[uuu]

So having kids isn't intrinsically appealing to me, but I guess being a father, provider, and protector for my own kids is appealing.

I'm not sure I understand this distinction. Humans exist in relation to one another. What do you imagine it would feel like to find kids "intrinsically appealing," if not to be drawn to the possibility of nurturing, protecting, and connecting with them?

It's hard to draw general conclusions from the 1950s and 60s gender role stereotypes. Very many women's destiny in life was a settled marriage and a home with children in those days - it was at the very heart of their security and their core purpose, and this gave them a fierce motive to get on with it. Which gave them a very different perspective on having children compared with men - the male equivalent destiny was an equally urgent need to find secure work and an income that would guarantee their independence and that of their own family when and if they had one. The media of the day reinforced these gender stereotypes by amplifying them in films, novels, etc, and they can look a bit like caricatures these days, but this cultural situation certainly distanced men from the child imperative.

This sounds horrible, but it also sounds ... a lot like the world right now? The key difference being that instead of women's destiny being a settled marriage, both men and women are under tremendous pressure to achieve financial security. I know many people who say things like "I will never date someone who makes less than six figures, because otherwise you will end up fighting about money" (seems to me like you could fight about money at any income level but YMMV) or "I don't want to bother trying to find a girlfriend until I am making more money, because dating pool will expand when I do and there's no point settling too early."

OK, the person who said the latter thing is me: I am drawn to the idea of having a marriage and kids, but I want to marry someone I truly love, and I worry that if I settle down with someone who is in my current dating pool, I will be left with FOMO, i.e. wondering who else was out there that I didn't have a chance to try dating because I was never "on" the dating market at my higher income/financial security level.

I recognize that this is not a very healthy mindset, because the bar for "financially secure" keeps moving up and up and I will probably always be able to generate this FOMO argument. But since so many young people are stuck in the very same feedback loop, at times it seems like I have no choice but to adopt the same line of reasoning, lest I waste my time pursuing someone who views me as only a temporary thing until they move onto bigger and better catches.

 

[Matty]

I'm not sure I understand this distinction. Humans exist in relation to one another. What do you imagine it would feel like to find kids "intrinsically appealing," if not to be drawn to the possibility of nurturing, protecting, and connecting with them?



.

Surprised it has to be spelled out, but why not?

Having kids is unappealing to me because I like being free to go where I want, when I want, and to do as I please. I also don't like the noise, emotional volatility, and literally childishness of children. So having kids isn't appealing, insofar as spending time with them is concerned, per se.

However, what is appealing about having kids is that they give purpose to life, work, and decisions. Even now, earning money, and putting it into assets instead of consumption is largely motivated by the thought that I'm preparing financial stability for kids in a few short years. If I end up having kids, I'll greatly relish providing for my own family, and happily involve myself in the aspects listed above, which aren't intrinsically appealing to me.

If on the other hand, I decide to become a monk, I'll gladly dispose of my belongings, money, and house, as they don't intrinsically hold much value to me, asside from the consideration of "providing for others."

The principal is that unappealing things are gladly participated in for a good reason. Like going to the dentist, which isn't appealing except that if you have a painful wisdom tooth, it makes sense to wish to see the dentist.

 

[John K]

This sounds horrible, but it also sounds ... a lot like the world right now?

I think you have a point here. It’s certainly different now in that women have a lot more choice in the path their lives may take. That’s a very good thing. It isn’t all good news though. When my parents were young it was possible for many families to live ok on a single income. This was true when I was in my 20s too. It’s almost impossible for a young couple with a child to live on one income any more so they are both forced to work whether they want to or not. That choice has gone apart from for a privileged few. It’s the cost of housing that’s made the difference - it had risen to match the total income of a family. That’s tough when your kids are babies and toddlers and need a lot of care, which is why good parental leave is so important.

My generation tended to have a less materially practical approach to partnering with someone and having a family. You settled with someone in your twenties and children followed no more than a few years later. It’s surprising how much social forces script how these things play out. The social expectation today is that people defer having a family until women start to feel the biological clock ticking. One of the things that’s made a big difference is social attitudes to sex - it’s much more ok to have temporary or casual relationships now than it was in the recent past. That has taken a lot of the force out of forming marriage and family partnerships early in adult life.

 

[John K]

If on the other hand, I decide to become a monk

What sort of monk would you become if you chose that path? In my youth I’d have gone for Cistercian or Capuchin, though these days I’d probably go for the Carmelites. It wasn’t to be though.

I can imagine you as a Dominican for instance but that could be way off. Maybe a Buddhist monk rather than a Christian one? But that wouldn’t have done for me. I have a huge respect for that perspective but I’m rooted in the perception of a personality embedded in reality and transcending it. These aren’t in conflict but just different roads to travel.

 

[uuu]

Having kids is unappealing to me because I like being free to go where I want, when I want, and to do as I please. I also don't like the noise, emotional volatility, and literally childishness of children. So having kids isn't appealing, insofar as spending time with them is concerned, per se.

However, what is appealing about having kids is that they give purpose to life, work, and decisions. Even now, earning money, and putting it into assets instead of consumption is largely motivated by the thought that I'm preparing financial stability for kids in a few short years. If I end up having kids, I'll greatly relish providing for my own family, and happily involve myself in the aspects listed above, which aren't intrinsically appealing to me.

So, a thought experiment for you: if what appeals to you is the abstract idea of providing materially for a living being but you don't like the physical presence of children, how would you feel about forgoing procreation and donating that money to a children's charity? In that case (and let's assume the charity isn't corrupt or anything), the charity can stretch your dollars to provide for even more children due to economies of scale, and you can keep tabs on the impact of your donation by following the organization's annual reports, social media, etc.

(I'm not trying to do a gotcha here—this is a sincere question. I'm trying to push your reasoning to a more extreme point in order to get a better feeling for where your actual position is.)

 

[InfernoMink]

My co worker was 25 years old when he started working here and from day one he always talked about having kids, he is now 29 years old and his first kid is turning one years old this weekend.
Some men do want children because they consider it a legacy.
I wasn’t one of those men.
I never wanted to have kids just to leave my last name behind, I find that foolish af.
Now if I had been born with a significant IQ level or had become a brain surgeon, then yes, I might have felt the need to leave a legacy of children behind with the potential of them to become geniuses and solve the world’s problems, instead of just human beings adding more piss and shit to the oceans, which is likely what my offspring would have become, just another number. Just look at our planet. Our food systems, our financial systems, they are this way because stupidity has multiplied more and thrived.

 

[uuu]

Here is another interesting video from David Hoffman's channel:

It gives a profile of the kind of individualistic, self-aware man who Esquire magazine envisioned as its target audience. The first part of the film leans into the idea that masculinity means different things to different people, and individual men set out to achieve masculinity in a variety of ways, sometimes even contradicting themselves. But the unifying image of manhood that emerges is that men are courageous, daring, and willing to do what they believe is right or good even when society says otherwise.

I think it is a strikingly positive and refreshing portrayal of masculinity, given the times—perhaps what this video shows is the graduation of the 50s company man into the 60s free thinker?

But the vision is not without limitations: ultimately, all of the ideas above are bracketed in the image of a man as a breadwinner with a steady job and disposable income. But some of that can be forgiven, in my eyes, because when you watch the whole video

Spoiler

there is a "twist" toward the end (maybe it will be more obvious to some of you) that the audience for the film is advertising firms, and the point is to convey to them that Esquire readers are likely to try out new, expensive products.

... which makes me think that the artist behind the video's "real" beliefs about manhood are even more progressive than what comes through on the final tape.

 

[Wyote]

Self discovery, regardless of gender, is about building and solidifying delicate supportive confidence.
Regrettably most narratives today (especially online) seek to destroy this pursuit.

 

[aeon]

I think it is a strikingly positive and refreshing portrayal of masculinity, given the times—perhaps what this video shows is the graduation of the 50s company man into the 60s free thinker?

But the vision is not without limitations: ultimately, all of the ideas above are bracketed in the image of a man as a breadwinner with a steady job and disposable income.

And because this horse has been beaten to the point of the maggots sighing “whatever,”—in the context of a radically different economy where a steady job with disposable income seems a Hollywood fever dream to more and more every day—so many men, and in particular, younger men, feel lost, with no role to assume and perform—and to a varying degree, they are unwanted because they are not taking on the role they have been assigned...

A role designed to sell shit. Pure consumerism makes the man!

This culture is fucking trash.

Whatever,
Ian

 

[uuu]

Self discovery, regardless of gender, is about building and solidifying delicate supportive confidence.
Regrettably most narratives today (especially online) seek to destroy this pursuit.

Could you elaborate on this? My impression is that modern narratives about self-discovery have moved towards positivity, confidence, and choosing what's right for you regardless of what society says. The problem is that this narrative is exploited by marketers and social media influencers to sell specific products and experiences, thereby defeating the self-deterministic principle at the heart of the narrative. But this is exactly what's going on in the film clip above: We are shown a self-driven, individualistic man and told he is the ideal candidate to mold into a consumer of our product.

My impression is that most people know, deep down, that self-discovery involves breaking through your socialization and learning to define yourself around what matters to you rather than subscribing to conventional images of what it means to be a man, woman, student, etc. But the prevalence of media telling us that moneymaking or prestigious college degrees or an outrageous frequency of sex are techniques for self-discovery muddies the waters—it is hard to tell self-discovery (as introspection) from self-discovery (a specific, marketed experience).

And because this horse has been beaten to the point of the maggots sighing “whatever,”—in the context of a radically different economy where a steady job with disposable income seems a Hollywood fever dream to more and more every day—so many men, and in particular, younger men, feel lost, with no role to assume and perform—and to a varying degree, they are unwanted because they are not taking on the role they have been assigned...

A role designed to sell shit. Pure consumerism makes the man!

This culture is fucking trash.

Whatever,
Ian

Hard agree, but I don't see a way for this culture to change in our lifetime—the risks of nonparticipation in "the game" far outweigh the expected benefits of trying to swim against the tide.

 

[Wyote]

Could you elaborate on this? My impression is that modern narratives about self-discovery have moved towards positivity, confidence, and choosing what's right for you regardless of what society says. The problem is that this narrative is exploited by marketers and social media influencers to sell specific products and experiences, thereby defeating the self-deterministic principle at the heart of the narrative. But this is exactly what's going on in the film clip above: We are shown a self-driven, individualistic man and told he is the ideal candidate to mold into a consumer of our product.

Your(anyone) understandings and interpretations will of course somewhat depend on what you are choosing to engage with.
What I was speaking to in a general sense is what you are talking about, the bastardization of narratives and the pervasiveness of this behavior.
Those bastardizations become the narratives.

My impression is that most people know, deep down, that self-discovery involves breaking through your socialization and learning to define yourself around what matters to you rather than subscribing to conventional images of what it means to be a man, woman, student, etc. But the prevalence of media telling us that moneymaking or prestigious college degrees or an outrageous frequency of sex are techniques for self-discovery muddies the waters—it is hard to tell self-discovery (as introspection) from self-discovery (a specific, marketed experience).

I think you are being kind of optimistic about people's ability to navigate these things appropriately.
They are harder to unravel and remove from the subconscious than most people have time/ability for.
But I agree with your differentiation and that people are generally aware of it.

 

[aeon]

They are harder to unravel and remove from the subconscious than most people have time/ability for.

Metaphorically Psychologically, it is necessary for one to first die before one may be reborn.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Wyote]

Metaphorically Psychologically, it is necessary for one to first die before one may be reborn.

Cheers,
Ian