Child Support - By Johannon Davis

Child Support

The traditional model of the masculine presence within the family as the provider has been embraced vastly throughout innumerable cultures and traditions. Yet within a comparatively short time frame within history, this role has been resisted and altered through economic, legal and  moral attitudes with a noticeable pressure now placed on women in the familial setting to provide emotional, spiritual  and now economic support for her dependant young.

While the attainment of equal employment and educational opportunities for women was sought to improve choice, social standing, protection (from abuse within the home and wider society) and to support ambition and social failings, the emphasis on the modern female has become that of ever growing responsibilities and ever diminishing support. The modern mother may now in the face of the ruins of her relationship find herself as the sole source of emotional and physical support for her children, with the male presence within the life of the child too often reduced to a faceless cash source only. The stigma of the modern mother is that should she find herself emotionally or physically taxed by the unequal distribution of the labour of daily child rearing she all too often faces criticism while the absent male is commended for the faceless ‘child support’. Surely the deserting of the post of father, once a socially endorsed entry into manhood, should reflect not on the mother, but indicate the disillusion of the masculine role within the family.

One may argue that the pursuit of activities external to the home (through the hunter and gatherer roles seen in historical man) and the subsequent reduction in the provision of emotional security to the infant through these activities - the masculine presence is through neglect and social alleviation of paternal responsibilities, rendering itself obsolete. The deconstruction of the family unit and reduction of the male presence in the child rearing process is reducing the role of man to a commercial enterprise in reproductive processes or a source of financial income only - where in some traditional roles the father may adapt the belief that to provide financial support and ‘putting food on the table’ is the full extent of his role- distancing himself from the active engagement in the role of child rearing inclusive of communication, discipline and moral implementation of the cultural code within the traditions of the family unit has led to further social inequalities than is measurable. The equality of partnership sought by early campaigners for female rights has been undermined by the mistake that the woman who can do it all, must, with the must being reduced from exemption to normality and those women who demand the equal and fair distribution of the labour of child rearing derided as ‘struggling mothers’.

Yet the loss of the traditional male role is not so easily solved simply by the laying of blame of modern man. The attitude of some men who feel minimal social pressure to provide greater input in the raising of their young, appears also to be fuelled by some women who resist the masculine presence within the child rearing process, having adapted the ‘i can, i will, i must’ attitude that to allow the father figure within the lives of their children is a slight on their mothering skills or in the same way some men may take the failure of their relationship with their spouse as a failure in their chance to raise their children, some women may also confuse the failure of their relationship with their spouse with the ability for their partner to adequately and successfully contribute to the raising of the child.

Whilst the template of masculinity has undergone a seismic shift in a remarkably short period of time, leaving many men and women in a state of bemusement of the validity of roles which until 40 years ago were common place, the family unit must come to a place of understanding that the provision of material goods are of secondary importance to the provision of protection, emotional stability and guidance from both parents. The need for warmth and bonding between child and parent remains a static need in a culture of fluid parenting rights and responsibilities.

Johannon Davis

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Gender' Issue 38

Pinocchio: A real boy?

'What is real, Neocchio?'

The young Pinocchio has entered into a debate in which his claims to be a  ‘real boy’ are deemed fraudulent and fantastical. Others claim he has no more right to consider himself human than the fire wood from which he came. Pinocchio claims he is being discriminated against due to his ‘flesh deficiency’ and argues that any object which displays intelligence, whether of wooden or computerised origins, can be considered human if these requirements are met: 

1) To be human requires comprehension of the external world

2) The demonstration of emotion

3) A physiological response to either internal or external stimuli

4) The beginnings of life and an awareness of one’s mortality

His father Geppetto points to Pinocchio’s ability to fabricate tales as proof of cognitive reasoning and intelligence; a product of not only surveying the external world but the capability to disseminate the information and formulate an alternative sequence of events, and his ability to be educated as further proof of mental activity. He argues that as both human brain matter and wood are organic in nature, and the point at which mind and body are assimilated are unknown and unproven in either, he too can be said to possess his own epicentre of thought.

Further to this Geppetto adds that the generated physiological change which occurs when lying (the extension of the nasal passage) is akin to the “human” response of the endocrine and haematological processes which commonly occur during a tales fabrication. Also, his father argues that if these displays of intellect and physical responses are not enough to prove his humanity, his emotive reactions to situations about him, including fear and excitement in the face of danger or amusements, indicate a human-like response to external stimuli. 

In addition to this Pinocchio is able to trace his origins, as such is aged, and possesses an awareness of his own mortality in his fear of fire. This, he argues, places him above animals which he protests demonstrate only a fear of the predator and a visceral reaction to the predator approaching, not a conscious understanding of the consequence of the predator successfully catching them.

Marionette or man, Pinocchio goes on displaying those signs which Geppetto considers life and wonders what more it would take for society to consider him too, to be a real boy.  

Johannon Davis

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Identity' Issue 37

Purpose of Life (ii) - By Johannon Davis

Purpose of Life (ii)

This piece is a continuation of the previous work 'Purpose of Life' and is a revision of its two tier approach. This two tier purpose concerned itself with survival and of continuing in ones existence and the acquisition of knowledge, however should we consider those individuals unable to communicate their experiences of sensory input and are thus unable to display knowledge i.e. the comprehension of information.

If one cannot know what it is like to be a bat, can one hope to be understand the guarded mind that lies without expression of itself? Put bluntly, as current science stands, no. This then poses the question that if such persons (and person is used intentionally) are unable to express knowledge in ways commonly observed through speech, action and reaction, then according to the previous proposal, are they then to be classed not as man but animal, achieving only their own survival through the involuntary continuation of organ function? Here we must note that whilst the acquisition of knowledge of such individuals cannot be proved, it must not be discounted and taken for non existence on grounds of current scientific limitation since it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the functioning of the mind of a man held captive by an uncooperative body should be just as well developed and knowledgeable as that of a man who believing his words without consequence should take to his bed and learn to cease all displays of consciousness.

Whilst a host of difficulties here arise as to the nature of the mind in relation to the brain which may or may not be capable of directing bodily expression, should we remain rigid in our requirements of some proof of knowledge acquisition as an essential component in the purpose of life which here is debatable, with knowledge remaining the great divide between man and beast, whilst our lived experience of the world about us does not allow such persons to be classed as less than man with purpose, what then shall we say? It seems this raises a significant flaw in the previously proposed two tier argument as it does not allow for the application of common sense. As such a third tier of purpose is here presented, that is, the ability for moral development in ones fellow man.

The act of being tended to by others allows for the development of virtues by both parties. There virtues not only promote a moral code in the community but allows the simultaneous migration of knowledge from passive to active through its application in meeting the requirements of the vulnerable person. As knowledge deepens through the lived experience of its application, the capacity for continued survival grows also as such knowledge when directed by the moral compass may drive forward the sciences and skills for extension and improvement of life.

This three fold approach to the purpose of life 1. To continue to survive 2. To acquire knowledge 3. To promote the virtues and moral compass of others - allows for the core of the self to be nurtured in its state of existence.

By Johannon Davis

The Philosophy Takeaway 'The Meaning of Life' Issue 29

Purpose of life - By Johannon 'Joanna' Davis

Purpose of life

To establish the purpose of life one can identify the denominator which is common to all life and furthering this effort, a common factor essential to all humanity irrespective of gender, status or background.  There are two tiers to the purpose of life, firstly, to continue to exist, secondly, and essential to separate us from animals and botanic life, is the pursuit of knowledge.

The first purpose of life is to continue to exist. Evidence for this is found in the body’s perpetual state of awareness as to its need for maintaining basics such as nutrition, allowing for the most basic of functions to continue. As such even in man's most primitive state, the purpose of life was met. As these functions are carried out in nature also, one could further imply that animals and botanic life have purpose. Only in man however does the need to maintain ones existence raise moral questions. For example, in a life or death situation would my consuming essential food and water to continue my existence in place of a pregnant woman who requires sustenance for two lives as opposed to one, be considered immoral? Instinctive patterns of ‘fight or flight’ may further offer support that the avoidance of death is a purpose of life, supported by the most basic cognitive functions.

The second purpose of life and the end which distinguishes man from nature, is the pursuit of knowledge. The pursuit of knowledge is essential for mankind as knowledge is the cornerstone of power and choice, precipitating freedom. It also thereby allows the fulfilling of the first purpose of life in man as knowledge provides strategies for survival. This pursuit is a universal principle and should not be confined to lofty ambitions to reach the corners of the universe or an understanding of the nature of happiness, but is found in daily tasks such as the understanding of ones social values and moral code. Such is its intrinsic link to life that not only is the pursuit of knowledge a purpose of life but a sustainer of it. If man is mind and matter then this is the purpose of life for man, whilst the purpose of all life is simply to continue to be.

If we then reject either tier of the purpose of life in favour of the belief that there is no purpose at all, then this rejection must remain relegated only to the outcome of a philosophical exercise as should this rejection of purpose be held true in reality, then humanity must abandon all attempts at continuing to live.

By Johannon 'Joanna' Davis