It isn’t either/or. It’s cumulative.

Joseph Campbell emphasized the idea of the “second father.” A mentor who takes a young man further than his father can.

A father has to love you, but the second fathers love has to be earned. Think NCOs in the military, coaches, sensais in martial arts.

We aren’t just missing fathers, we’re missing second fathers.

Not many people would describe a gunny sergeant, or football coach, or the guy who runs the local Karate America as a second father.

If you include foremen, clergy, and union bosses as second fathers, a man living in 1960 could expect to spend his entire life under the tutelage of second fathers.

Traditionally masculine institutions like the military, workplace, and churches have renounced their “second family” status, and tried desperately to feminize to appeal to women.

What sorts of institutions offer “second fathers” to young men now? Predatory ones, like far-right groups. And some sports.

Edit: there are plenty of institutions that market themselves as second families - tech companies for example. But they tend to eschew masculine gender roles.

> What sorts of institutions offer “second fathers” to young men now?

Must it be institutionalized? Can't this be encouraged without some one-sized-fits-all framework? I learned from a lot of guys in church related groups, yet with so much garbage messaging it made me hate myself. Also encountered some very good guys in school, forums, and LAN gaming, and without the religious strings attached.

Institutions are “stable, valued, recurring patterns of behavior.”

Institutions encourage “second fatherhood” as a means of passing in the patterns of behavior.

That behavior might be killing opposing militaries, educating future generations, or religious worship.

So I think there’s a strong obvious link between institutions and second fathers.

I wholly agree with "second fathers."

I am Gen X, and I think one of the social institutions which has quietly vanished before I could quite get to it was the old Roman concept of "patronage." Without understanding I was doing it until embarrassingly late, I spent a lot of time looking for those second fathers, the mentors, the patrons. What broke it for me was someone who was clearly suited for the role, and had benefited from it himself, but was simply too self-involved to pay it forward, as it were. I realized that the Boomers as a trend just weren't thinking patronage or even the idea of planting trees they wouldn't see grown.

So, no mentors for me. Nor am I, sadly, in the position to be much of one myself. I can at last see myself doing it and cut that off at the pass.

If the "wrong" groups have something to offer in the way of second fathers, maybe their values aren't as bad as expected. Nobody wants to even consider that. If only The Bad Guys are making sense about some issues, what else might they be correct on?

> If the "wrong" groups have something to offer in the way of second fathers, maybe their values aren't as bad as expected. Nobody wants to even consider that. If only The Bad Guys are making sense about some issues, what else might they be correct on?

Some of those “wrong groups” are just flat out scammers and charlatans though - see those “alpha male” influencers hawking their courses or whatever. They are taking advantage of a need in others to enrich themselves without really giving a damn about their charges.

Two examples immediately spring to mind, Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson.

I’m sure both have had some moderately useful things to say at some stage of their life for some folks, but a quick look at their Twitter profile tells you everything you really need to know now.

To be fair, several years ago Jordan Peterson seemed quite genuine and earnest about wanting to do good in the world...and then his Benzos coma happened, and he was out cold for several months in Russia or something bizarre, an it's very, very obvious that he has never recovered from that.

Like, we're talking some amount of genuine brain damage damage which he's just stuck with now.

Twitter was also just not a good place for him at all. Some people just get sucked into that sort of stuff, even though it's terrible for their public image, and even though there is so much more they could be doing. Anyone remember how people made fun of eg. Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson for being obnoxiously atheistic on Twitter? Yeah, it's a bit like that.

I think social media influencers should be excluded from the “second father” category.

This is an in person relationship.

Sadly a lot of folks form parasocial relationships with influencers.

I would point out that most of your examples are only allowed to hold significant sway over a boy after they've become a young man, in the teen years and further. I'm also speaking to young childhood through the early teen years, when children are mostly going to be limited to their home and neighborhood. There are cultures where they'll regularly come into contact with "second fathers", who will have discipline privileges over/responsibility for them, over the course of their daily activities. This is not the case in America; the norm is the buck stopping with one's resident parents, and others have little authority or responsibility. So I understand if it's hard to conceptualize; we simply don't have much lived experience with it.

You're thinking institutions, when I mean uncles and grandparents who live down the street, or even with the family; trusted neighbors (perhaps distant relatives); teachers who can afford to live in the same neighborhood; local workers and entrepreneurs who are included in neighborhood life; and so on.

There is no such thing as an extended family unless there are strong nuclear families to begin with. this concept is lost on so many people... But it's simply easier to raise your kids with their grandparents aunts and uncles if grandma and grandpa had a good relationship and aren't divorce to begin with.

Divorce is ultimately at the root of so many social ills but it's verboten to even mention

> but it's verboten to even mention

You just did.

I find it curious, though, that a number of commenters seem to focus almost entirely on the "present" aspect and not on the crucial emotional investment aspect discussed in the article: "when fathers are present and emotionally invested in children’s lives", the title of which says "what boys really need is emotional support from their dads".

Presence alone is not necessarily helpful, and indeed can be harmful, as demonstrated by countless abusive parents. On the other hand, an emotionally invested parent can make a positive impact regardless of whether they're married.

>>but it's verboten to even mention

>You just did.

And now his comment is grey.

> And now his comment is grey.

It's not, as far as I see now.

Anyway, downvoting on HN is not the same thing as "verboten". Downvoting is a feature of HN that is supposed to put higher quality comments higher up and lower quality comments lower down. (I'm not saying it works, but that's the theory.)

I'm not sure it's quite that simple, as some marriages are toxic to children. But the general dissolution of the nuclear family is not a positive trend, and will have grave consequences for future generations.

> I'm not sure it's quite that simple, as some marriages are toxic to children.

Some marriages are, certainly, but all divorces are.

> Divorce is ultimately at the root of so many social ills but it's verboten to even mention

Divorce is frequently mentioned but as usual life is a compromise.

I was reading recently about suicide and depression numbers for women, especially, going down significantly when divorce became socially acceptable.

> There is no such thing as an extended family unless there are strong nuclear families to begin with.

I disagree on that point. It takes a village to raise a child, and a large enough extended family has space for all sorts. Not everyone is called to the married life: I agree that divorce is a problem, but divorce rates would go down quite a bit if those for whom marriage is not compatible with their personality didn't get married in the first place, and there was a space for them to thrive within the family/community.

Again, I grew up in an extended family, being taken care of by grandparents, aunts etc. Singleness is not the problem. Single people are not opposed to a nuclear family. Divorce is. Divorce with children takes a family and breaks it apart. To compare divorce to singleness is disingenuous.

> but divorce rates would go down quite a bit if those for whom marriage is not compatible with their personality didn't get married in the first place, and there was a space for them to thrive within the family/community.

Being single is as socially acceptable as ever (in fact, it is slowly but surely becoming the default) and I see no sign of things improving.

A big part of this in the US is our continued evolution in suburbs: In practice, in person contact with others is a lot more work than historically. This makes children have very little contact with adults other than teachers and their own parents. Even contact in businesses is depersonalized, given this world of chains, large stores and many employees with changing shifts, leading to minimal recurring contact, and interactions that very rarely get personal.

More communal countries, both in Europe in Asia, still have some personal contact: From a pharmacist to an ice cream man, a town or a neighborhood can have community, and with that community come the children seeing those workers as people, and having a relationship with them. When most business is done on foot, people see each other down the street, or in the park, and there's a chance of community. With suburbia an cars, all social contact takes effort: Community get expensive, and few pay the price.

When suburbs were first built they were much more social. You had churches, Kiwanis clubs, veterans clubs, unions, bowling leagues, etc.

But those third place institutions have been gradually replaced by the internet.

Bowling Alone said declining civic ties started in the 1960s. Critics said even earlier.

This reads like a lot of broscience to be fair

> are most an issue when a boy's regularly-accessible social unit has been whittled down to the nuclear family. That seems to be a crisis in-and-of-itself.

Quite the contrary, it seems that those who would modify and engineer culture have been pushing on everyone the idea that men are fungible. That step-daddy, or mommy's new boyfriend, or all the men in the hippy commune are adequate substitutes... and it seems like that's just never the case (at least not often enough to count on).

It may just be down to math. All those other men who might substitute just have their own lives. Your grandpa likely has other children and other grandchildren. Their focus is diluted. Uncles might be trying to raise their own families. Step-dad just thinks your inconvenient and a competitor for the attention and resources of his own children, either from a previous marriage or after he knocks up mommy.

And if that's not bad enough, think about the circumstances we tend to see in these situations. Mommy (and it's usually her, isn't it?) just doesn't get along with the rest of her extended family. Not only is she demanding extra attention for her own offspring, she's showing them all how bad she is at judging character, at planning her life, etc. It's a high risk investment in a person who doesn't look like a good investment at all, for someone they already have negative feelings for.

Teachers, mentors and friends are of course very important, but I would believe this not to be the case.

There is no society or commune to take care of the immediate needs. There can be large families that offer a very good and secure support network and there are families that form clans. In that it seems to be a very neutral influence.

> I admit that there's likely some who won't like hearing this

You have to advertise this larger community unit a bit because I don't really see it aside from the latter example. The time of the utopia commune parenting with the weird third party uncle was never very popular and most importantly, not very successful.

Father that take pride in parenting will get much better results and to say that is egotism seems like a very sad and reduced perspective.

> Father that take pride in parenting will get much better results

You need both. Fathers that take pride in parenting their own kids, and the random neighbor kids, and their sister's kids, and their friend's kids when they happen to be around. And other parents that support said fathering.

A totally disinterested father cannot be replaced by a broad functional community. A functional community cannot be replaced by a highly invested father. They simply fulfil similar but differing needs.

You could say the village is made up of fathers (and mothers, etc.) who take pride in parenting.

I don't expect something like that to form anywhere aside from very remote villages where people tend to stay for most of their lives. In a modern city interactions are probably too fleeting, people change location too often. Strong relationships need time to form.

So people leave and only the closest family members and friends remain in contact. Even with Facebook. I believe this is a main driver for why you generally don't see large families in the western sphere anymore.