An aspect of being a parent hit me hard when my wife, Kathy, passed away a few weeks ago. Her health was suffering prior, but her death was unexpected and shocking. Only 70 years old, we had spent 53 years together, 47 years married. While I remain at a loss, I am supported by my son, daughters, their husbands, and grandchildren, which I will expand upon later.

At first, I was in shock and amid great activity - making arrangements, constantly surrounded by words of compassion and foods of comfort. Many who loved Kathy were around, sharing their sadness and stories with my family. Her service was attended by so many whose lives she had touched. It was almost joyous given the remembrances of her. After the formalities were over, we had a luncheon for all. It was a good day in the sense that it was a wonderful celebration of her life.

Then, everyone went back to their daily lives, to routines that were normal for them. That’s when the reality had a now open path that hit me hard! The silence of the house, the wonderful dinners she cooked were no more. I missed our conversations and even our arguments. Our new kitchen, which she had dreamed of for years, was being constructed as she lay in the hospital for four months. I gave her updates, and she told me NOT to pick out our new stove until she could go with me. Now, her beautiful kitchen is finished, and she never saw it. But I see it every day, and it reminds me of her in both good and very sad ways.

Overall, I am doing just fine, not great, but why would I be doing great? I worry about my children having lost their mother and four grandchildren for whom every moment of her recent life was dedicated! She basically clothed them and created traditions they all loved. I’m sure, like me, their emotions erupt out of nowhere with the realization of her absence, which cannot be undone. And that realization hits the hardest, like a hammer to the forehead, something impossible to undo. But I then consider all the adventures we had together with our family. They were wonderful! They happened, and they too cannot be undone. Death is as natural as being born. Kathy lived a good life and much longer than many who die tragically young. She will never suffer the fear of a child’s or grandchild’s sickness. She left us without having to worry beyond what normal mothers/grandmothers do. Thoughts like these are helpful, if not a remedy for the sadness.

Now for my family. Every parent knows the difficulties of parenting. Enforcing rules, trying to be fair and consistent. Not always sure when to help your children or to let them flounder on their own to learn. We know the worries that keep us up at night, the frustrations of not feeling like we’re getting through to them. We give up trips, shiny objects, peaceful evenings, and spend lots of time and money on them. But my God, if you raise them to be decent, loving, human beings, you will want and need them around to return to you the love and help you will need when you are older.

I still have my family to live for, to help, and to rely on. How could I have got through Kathy’s death without their support, love, and help? They were worth every investment in time, money, and irritation as Kathy and I raised them. Our children will look out for us when we can’t think or walk as fast as we used to. They will protect us from social predators, from making bad decisions, and give us unconditional love–just as we did for them when they needed it. I’m a healthy 72 years old and very independent. But I am dependent on their love, and I know they have my back. That path opened again as I write, and it’s good to let it out. Thankfully, tears don’t stain a keyboard as they do paper, where the ink would bleed into pools of blue.
​
Many young people today are deciding not to have children, or maybe just one. That’s not a good decision for society in my opinion, but it may be for them. Also, no one has or should have kids for the purpose of using or depending on them in old age! But aging without a family is something I could not do very well, and I don’t recommend it. Give of yourself as a parent, and it will be given back generously. Being born, living, and dying are all part of nature’s plan. It’s my belief that having a family is also. Thank you, God, for mine!!
 
Michael Byron Smith
Author of "The Power of Dadhood: How to Become the Father Your Child Needs"

Have you heard of families that have to go to two or three different fast-food restaurants because not everyone in the family wants the same food? Let’s say you’re traveling by car and want to get some lunch. You all decide on Taco Bell, but little Freddie wants a Happy Meal at McDonalds. Do you go to both restaurants in the name of being an accommodating parent? Maybe, if McDonalds is next door. But there isn’t one at this exit (surprise!) so you travel two exits down to get the Happy Meal. Sometimes, this is okay. But if you always do this to satisfy their whims, you might create a monster.

In my last blog post, I discussed life not being fair. I’d like to continue along that theme. The question here is why should a large majority give up their needs to satisfy a small minority, and when? The short answer, I believe, has to do with reasonable rights. As a country, I believe the Founding Fathers did a good job in this area, balancing the needs of all. That’s why we have a House of Representatives (representing the many) and a Senate (protecting the few) which check and balance each other.
​
Getting back to the family, if one member requests something different from everyone else, they have that right - IF specific reasons or needs exist. It could be they have allergies, diet needs, or a true revulsion (a rarity). If, however, they are only in a mood for something different, it’s not right to bear upon everyone else. There is something for Little Freddie at Taco Bell. He’s eaten there before.

Now let us go from a family level to a societal level. When should small groups impact much larger groups of citizenry in a negative or troublesome way? Again, it depends on rights and who defines those rights. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a perfect example of a much smaller group of citizens causing a large group of citizens to be affected for the needs of that smaller group. The impacts are small in some ways, large in others, such as building requirements, heavy costs. But it is the right thing to do, and few would argue that point.

In the last few years, however, small, organized and unorganized groups are causing serious disruptions to the many that may not be necessary. I say ‘may not be necessary’ allowing for reasons yet unknown to me. I will mention a few.

1. There has been a large cry by a few to defund the police. The few get satisfaction for real and perceived police misconduct. The many lose important community needs for safety, and increased crime.
2. There have been sexually explicit books allowed in many elementary schools. For the few, this liberates certain lifestyle choices. For the many, children have been exposed to pornographic language and depictions before they or their parents are ready to touch upon a sensitive topic in the way they choose.
3. The Black Lives Matter organization wants to tear down the idea of the nuclear family. The few get something from this for what I’m truly unsure. Of course, we know all families cannot be nuclear. The many are impacted by the real statistics that show more poverty, drugs, crime, and teen mothers occurring in non-nuclear families. Certainly, some non-nuclear families are very successful.
4. Many District Attorneys in major cities are not prosecuting crimes. The few are claiming this is necessary for equity, protecting criminals’ rights. The many are impacted by higher crime, more expensive insurance, and a greater exposure of highly unethical acts to foul a neighborhood, culture, and society.
5. A culture exists of canceling the free speech and activities with whom a few disagree. For these few, they are gaining leverage in their ideals. For the many, free speech is being restricted in US and some are losing rights and an their chosen way of living.
6. Biological males who identify as female are being allowed in women’s restrooms and also competing physically with biological females. For the few, they are living a lifestyle more comfortable for them. For the many, this is uncomfortable, embarrassing, and intrusive. Or, in sports, this philosophy takes away recognition for truly outstanding physical performances by biological women.
7. There has even recently been some defense of pedophiles! One Harvard professor says the term, 'pedophile' should be replaced with ‘minor-attracted person’. A recent reference in USA Today, since retracted, defended pedophiles as not always being active, and that non-podophiles defile children too, etc. For the few who have some sympathy for the sickness of pedophilia, they assume some necessary awareness, and seek societal help. For the majority, nothing is more important than protecting their children from predators!

These are examples of the few who impact, or affect, the many in ways that hurt the majority. Is there a ‘right’ to defund the police? Is there a ‘right’ to place books of explicit sexual activity in elementary schools? Is there a ‘right’ to eliminate or downplay nuclear families? Is there a ‘right’ of criminals not to be prosecuted? I know there is a right to free speech! Is there a ‘right’ for biological males to enter a women’s restroom? Maybe they have a right to their own restroom, but do the many have to pay for it? And no one has a right to hurt a child, but a pedophile has a ‘right’ to get help from a professional!

While I have my thoughts on this, and the right to say them, you may have different thoughts, and you are welcome to them. But we should consider with much discussion when a few can have leverage over the many when no specific rights are violated. The few may feel this is not fair, and they may be right. But life is not fair! When choices must be made that are not fair, the edge should go to the majority, especially when rights are not being violated.
 
 

There are many anti-family forces in our society. Even the heavily supported (by many progressives and even many high tech companies) BLM organization does not support the nuclear family.

I’ll narrow in on an article in The Atlantic written by David Brooks. “The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake,” he wrote, “The family structure we’ve held up as the cultural ideal for the past half-century has been a catastrophe for many. It’s time to figure out better ways to live together.”

This article is long and well researched, but with conclusions that confuse me. I’ll mention a few.

First of all:

Per Brooks. “The shift from bigger and interconnected extended families to smaller and detached nuclear families ultimately led to a familial system that liberates the rich and ravages the working-class and the poor.”
The assumption is that you don’t have to lean on the extended family as much if you are successful, and you won’t connect. While this may be true, he suggests it ties people through need, not love. Furthermore, the extended families of poor people are usually poor themselves, without the means to help. I find my extended family wants my involvement. All I have to do is show love and interest.

Brooks states, “Among the highly educated, family patterns are almost as stable as they were in the 1950s; among the less fortunate, family life is often utter chaos. There’s a reason for that divide: Affluent people have the resources to effectively buy extended family, in order to shore themselves up.”

DUH! The problem lies in the fact that coming from a chaotic family creates more chaotic families that continue to struggle. It requires a child of “less fortunate” families to take matters into their own hands to break free from the struggle. They often have to do it independently because their extended family will not be capable of helping or cheering them on - because they are chaotic. Is it difficult for a child from a poor, chaotic family to break free? No! It’s not difficult to do; it’s just difficult to realize when in that environment!

The Brookings Institute found that these three simple rules will help one avoid poverty:

1. Graduating from high school.
2. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.
3. Having a full-time job.

If you do all those three things, your chance of falling into poverty is just 2 percent. Meanwhile, you’ll have a 74 percent chance of being in the middle class, becoming one of the more affluent families. You will create a ‘breakaway from poverty family,’ and your children will have the advantages other affluent families enjoy, therefore helping to grow a more self-sufficient society. Brooks, to me, is a ‘chicken or the egg’ argument. What comes first, affluence, then success, or success, then affluence? Wealth can bring success with its advantages. But success from good ideas like the three steps above can bring wealth. Being highly educated is undoubtedly advantageous for success, but not being stupid (or remaining ignorant) is an even more significant advantage.

Secondly:

Nuclear families are successful, “so long as women are relegated to the household.”
I live next to a large neighborhood where both of my daughters also reside. This neighborhood is full of nuclear families where both parents work while others choose to have one parent stay home with their younger children. I know many of these families through my daughters, and they seem to thrive. Yes, they are relatively but not significantly affluent, but these mothers are not relegated to the household. Of course, there are challenges. Women should not be ‘relegated’ to motherhood if that’s what you call it (I don’t). Neither should motherhood be belittled. Maybe the father stays home as many more do these days. Maybe neighbors and relatives help with the children, or one or both parents work part-time. Allowing your younger children to learn socialization skills in pre-school is also helpful, allowing parents time for other activities. Neither mom nor dad nor child can have everything they want at once.

Having a well-balanced family requires sacrifices, just like any other endeavor. Maybe your dreams of travel, writing a novel, or big promotions may have to wait. To do so means you have found that raising human beings as successful people is just as important and impressive as becoming CFO or ‘employee of the month,’ assuming you have that talent in the first place - because not everyone does. Are you crying about not being able to chase your dreams? Then don’t have children. If you already have them, be patient; they will only take up 20-30% of your life - and they deserve being a priority. Parents can work it out by balancing, not pouting.

Lastly:

“For many people, the era of the nuclear family has been a catastrophe. All forms of inequality are cruel, but family inequality may be the cruelest. It damages the heart.”

This statement may be true, but do we want to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Do we want to eliminate the nuclear family, so dysfunctional families don’t have to feel bad for themselves? We would love equal and fair outcomes for all, but life is not fair, not all people work as hard as others, and bad luck can come to any of us.

It was difficult and maybe cruel for my siblings and me to be raised in a dysfunctional family as we were. However, most of us now have functional families of our own—those who don’t are not blaming anyone outside of the family. Certainly, none of us blamed successful families for the deeds we performed, causing distress within our own family.

Summary:
​
There are many more conclusions in the Brooks article with which I beg to differ. When it comes down to it, it depends on what lens you choose to view these issues that ultimately drive your conclusions. But beyond my thoughts and biases is common sense. While not possible for all, is not a nuclear family the best way for most children to thrive? The ‘best’ for ‘most’? Not the best for all, or the worst for some, but the ‘best for most’? I don’t consider that opinion. I consider it self-evident

​#powerofdadhood