In human societies fathers usually do play a role in their children's development. However, their role is largely determined by their society. Fathers may or may not participate in infant care. The age at which their influence begins to emerge and the degree of their involvement in their children's care varies greatly between cultures. This is because they have no biological role after conception. Among the first people father was a nice supplement to the first human family consisting of mother and child. Rather than, as the old song goes, "And baby makes three," it was more likely, "And father makes three."

The question, "Are fathers necessary?" can now be asked about mothers. Are mothers necessary after a baby is born? They are necessary prior to birth while the fetus is growing in the mother's womb. But after birth, whether we like to admit it or not, mothers are no longer necessary. A good nurse will do or a stay-at-home father or a central nursery or a day care center. Mammary glands are no longer needed either. Formula in a bottle is supplied by manufacturers and can be administered by anyone. With the right gadgets, the caretaker just has to prepare the bottle, and the baby can feed itself. If not right after birth then soon after.

The milk bottle and infant care practices which physically separate infant and mother have eliminated the need for the natural mother. The mother, ignoring the unique mammalian characteristics with which she was endowed, becomes no different than the male of her species. Like her male counterpart, she does not have a biological relationship with her baby after birth. Lacking a biological connection to her infant the mother's behavior, like that of the father's, will chiefly be guided by cultural custom and belief.

The elimination of the natural mother's biological role in caring for her infant is not a recent event. In fact, throughout civilization in many parts of the world, it became customary for mothers who were wealthy to not take care of their children at all. When the first mothers started vanishing, they weren't replaced by fake mothers immediately. Fake mothers are a recent addition to the world. Babies were kept alive and nourished by wet nurses. Bottles filled with animal milk or pap (grain mixed with water or milk) were available, but they were less relied on than the wet-nurse. Wet-nursing, which was an established and well-paying profession from ancient times through the nineteenth century, did not lead to the creation of fake mothers, but rather to no mothers. You see, after the first people vanished mothering was no longer valued or considered important. Indeed, it was looked down upon. Taking care of babies or children was not for the better people, the people with more. It was a job for servants, the people who were less. A wealthy mother who nursed her baby or wanted to actively take care of her children was viewed as strange, eccentric, and even crazy. Only poor women had to take care of their offspring. A mother was not ashamed of, or dishonored by, not mothering as she would have been with the first people. It was more of a humiliation and a mark of poverty if she did mother.

Mothering had fallen into disrepute. Not only was it lowly and animal-like for a mother to mother, but it was seen as harmful to children. Everyone knew that real mothering led to mothers becoming attached to their children and to having tender feelings in regards to them. This could result in mothers indulging their children and not wanting to live separate from them. This was the wrong prescription for children if they were to adapt to the real world - a world run by and for hard guys. In a male-dominated world fatherhood, not motherhood, ruled. The artificial compact of father and son had replaced the unity of mother and child. Mothering was not only loathed, but it was downright dangerous. It could upset the apple-cart by making the world more caring. The elimination of mothering was not an accident but a necessity for civilization to progress. Rome and the modern world were not built on a foundation of tenderness, but rather on its absence.

The history of childhood in civilization has been described by those few who have researched it extensively as cruel and abusive, with one author calling it a nightmare. Infanticide, abandonment, physical and sexual abuse, and exploitation as a source of cheap labor were common occurrences in children's lives. Historically, cruelty to children has merely reflected the cruelty inflicted on all individuals - a characteristic of most civilized societies. Children, having less power, were just more vulnerable.

It has only been in the past few hundred years that the conditions of childhood have improved. Infanticide and abandonment of children are now rare. There are laws against child abuse, and child labor is regulated. The social reforms of the last two centuries have improved the lot of everyone. Recognition and respect for the individual and his rights increasingly includes children as well as adults.

We have become aware of the fact that children need more than physical care. They also require love, attention, and stimulation for normal development. Our problem now is how to provide them with what we know they need. Natural mothering, which evolved to match the needs of babies and young children, could easily satisfy our children's requirements. But we have spent centuries finding ways to eliminate the necessity for mothers to mother. Our values, priorities, and traditions discourage the kind of mothering all human children evolved to have. It is obvious, if we are honest, that our society does not genuinely value, honor, or give priority to mothering. We do not really know if mothers even want to mother anymore. The current trend is for mothers to work while others care for their children. The cry of mothers is not for the opportunity or right to stay home so they can care for their babies, but rather for more and better day care facilities. Is it really true that many mothers do not take care of their children because of the necessity to earn a living? What would happen if our government began to pay women to stay home and take care of their children instead of working? Which would they choose? Of course it is foolish to even ask the question since our government has only recently passed a law which gives mothers the security of having a job to return to, should they choose to temporarily stay home and care for a newborn.

It is probably true that most mothers still experience a tender connection to the life they have created. Civilization has not yet been able to totally destroy the ancient connection of mother and infant. But for mothers to act on their tender feelings, they must have an enormously strong belief in the importance of mothering. Without such a conviction the individual mother will be unable to overcome the values and priorities of our society, which, from the moment of birth, will oppose her efforts to mother in the manner natural to our species.

That bring us to another question. "Even though mothers are no longer necessary, do children need mothers?" We know that babies evolved to be cared for by their mothers for a long time after they are born. We also know that they were meant to develop in a relationship of human tenderness. Are our substitutes for mother equivalent to her? We know that formula doesn't match human milk, but babies can live and grow on such a diet. But how about the other part, the human part? Milk bottles with formula and plastic nipples don't prevent the caring, tender interaction of mother and infant. They just make it possible for a baby to develop without it. And that is what milk bottles have done for millions of babies - allow them to live without tenderness. From my view, that isn't good; it's bad - bad for babies and children and mothers and, when these babies grow up, bad for everyone.

Babies and children who successfully elicit a tender response from their mothers on a consistent basis grow up to be very different from those who do not. They learn that they and the world are good. The others learn that they and the world are bad. It can be no other way. If you have the power to produce in others a good response, then you are good. If you have the power to produce a bad response from others, then you are bad. If you are consistently ignored and met with no response or with indifference, then you have no power at all. You will not even know if you exist, and you will have to go about proving that you do, even if it eventually brings a bad response. It's better to be hated than to not exist.

Nature provided a nurturing mother to perpetuate parental genes and the species. Accidentally, it also made humans good to each other. Goodness was not nature's purpose. It's just that we humans feel good when someone cares about us. It was humans who created the bad by not responding to their children's need for tenderness. But every baby gives the world a new chance; each has the power to elicit the good.

In our world we have discovered how to take the mother out of mothering. We have made mothers become no different than anyone else. We have made mothers unable to appreciate mothering. We have taken the good out of mothering and made it bad. Once a mother does not have to be there for her baby, once she and her baby are separate, she is no more qualified than anyone else to take care of her baby. She is no longer special or equipped to do the job. Stripped of the compelling biological forces that will keep her attached to her baby, she will usually become involved in the physical tasks of infant care rather than in being one with her baby. She will lose sight of her essential task, which is to be there for her baby's security and satisfaction. She will accept and believe cultural thinking which pretends to know better than she does what her baby needs from her. She will not understand that she can only be a real mother if she behaves as the human animal that she is - nurturing and protective of the life that she has created. She will not know that mothering is merely commitment to a life other than her own. She will not learn that this is not a sacrifice but an affirmation, a yes to her own existence and power as a human being. She will miss out on the opportunity to pass on the good. In the natural world in which we evolved giving birth was not enough. Mothers continued after birth to give their babies that which they required to grow as human: themselves. To become human, in its broadest sense, babies need more than care; they need the experience of another human being's commitment to their life. They need to know that someone is there for them.

We have found new ways to keep babies alive. Babies no longer need their natural mothers to live and develop as their ancestors once did. We have substitutes for mother, and she is no longer necessary after her baby is born. Thus, we have eliminated the necessity for commitment to, and responsibility for, each other. Throughout the history of civilization hosts of individuals have grown up lacking the experience that someone cared for them as a child. They may have been taken cared of, at least to survive, but no one cared. Until recently hardly anyone even cared that no one cared. Today we know that children need love. But love is a tricky word. It is subject to all kinds of fake stuff and is often used to conceal a lack of responsibility and commitment. "But I love you," is frequently said to compensate for not being there or for being uncaring. The difference between love and commitment is that love is an abstract concept, meaning it's an idea, whereas commitment is real. Adults, as well as children, often do not know if they are loved, but they sure know when someone is there for them.

The point of all this is simply that mothers are no longer necessary, but every baby needs one. Babies and children need mothers because nature made it necessary for someone to be there for them. Mothers were the guarantee. Now, some mothers don't see this as an unfair burden put on women and some mothers really are there for their children. And some fathers too. And some mothers do find substitutes for themselves who really are there for their children. But that isn't true for most children. There simply ain't nobody there. We have been able to replace natural mothering with wet nurses, milk bottles, formula, pacifiers, cribs, heated rooms, security blankets, teddy bears, love, attention and quality time. But we haven't found a substitute for human commitment or for the kind of caring that states, "I am here for you; you are as important as I am." It can't be done by saying these words. It has to be real, and it can only be real if someone does it because children don't need love; they need someone who is there for them. That has always been true, is true today, and will be true in the future unless we find a way to change who babies are when they are born.

Six: Training Baby To Not Be A Baby And Turning Him Into Something Else

Postscript