Not after they were around 6 and 8. Their mom remarried when they were in their teens. So yeah, probably that's part of the problem. But their biological father was also quite lazy and never had a job for very long (part of the reason she left him, that and he did a good bit of gaslighting) so it's not like he was a great example for them to follow (In fact, last I heard he was living with his parents and he's well into his 50s).
I’m not keen on giving a pass that easily. The US education system is decent, and if they can read and write, and have access to internet and a stable home, it’s on them at some point to take it initiative.
Well as prospective adoptive father... In some ways... Yes. That was part of our adoption training. To learn that many adoptees want to know their biological mom and dad and suffer greatly if they're not able. An adoptive father can provide all the emotional support in the world and the day to day fathering, but he can't provide the biology, whereas a biological one can provide both the day to day fathering and the bio connection.
It's not a popular sentiment... But it was required as part of our certification in california. When separated from mom and dad, they call it the primal wound, but our society accepts separating children from one parent without any of the guilting they require adoptive parents to go through.
From a purely empirical standpoint, in aggregate, biological father's are the least likely to hurt or kill their children. Both adoptive father's and step father's are more likely to. Says nothing about individuals, but as a society it would behoove the powers that be to ensure most kids are raised by bio parents. And by far most states adopt this approach, even to the point of absurdity.
My twin brother and I grew up without a biological father, were very independent at an early age, and both have high-paying jobs in faang. Both well-adjusted, multiple relationships, successful, etc.
I see a lot of Jordan Peterson-esque BS professing these “no biological father == neet” rules, and I’m not saying that’s the point you’re leading with your question, but am jumping at any opportunity to dispel it, just in case.
and someone can successfully complete high end raids in world of warcraft despite being a paraplegic. Doesn't mean everyone should be able to do so or its too easy to raid. Don't view outliers and your own experience as standard; high achievers do this way too often and end up discounting the real difficulty and struggles in accomplishing such a thing.
Right, but the point I’m making is being raised without a father is not the (to take your example) paraplegic-level setback some in the red pill camp seem to think it is.
It’s not even an outlier experience, either. Even among high achievers. Consider that ~50% of African American NBA players and ~20% of white NBA players come from a single parent household. [0]
Curious, do you think the parent poster was saying that fatherless households actually give rise to paraplegics somehow? If not, why not respond to the actual argument with relevant data, rather than responding to strawmen arguments with NBA participation rates? Just seems like a very odd piece of data to bring up unless you can provide evidence that NBA participation rates are representative of overall well-being for the metrics under discussion.
An irony that is not lost on me is that high achievers often have their own problems that they would know about if they and society wasn’t so keen to dismiss the problems of others. I was told I was lazy when I couldn’t keep up with the other kids physically (just exercise more), and I thought they were lazy when other kids couldn’t keep up with me mentally (just study more). Turns out it was hEDS. It would have been nice to have figured that out 25 years earlier, the damn thing near ruined my life.