One of the exam questions for a 3 year old nursery 1 boy is: Who pays your school fees? Now, in the social awareness class, the pupils had been taught the family and the ‘roles’ of each member. Daddy’s role is to pay school fees. But there is a problem. This boy’s father is a not a responsible man. The boy’s education (and that of his older one) has been the responsibility of the mother. To his exam question, at first, the boy replied that father pays his school fees (according to what he had been taught). After a moment, he corrected himself, and said mother pays school fees. His teacher pondered his response and marked him correct anyway!

Although in most urban families, school fees come from both parents, teaching that father pays fees is meant to introduce his role as provider to little children. Some may criticize such social awareness curriculum as parochial and not updated enough to reflect ‘modern day reality’. They ask, ‘what if the child is a raised by a single parent—mother?’ But we must recall that for little children we must keep it simple; no complications and complexities. It is this ‘modern day reality’ that is the concern.

If a phenomenon occurs only very rarely, it can be discounted and we can safely generalize the vast majority. We teach children that humans have 5 fingers per hand. But we also know that some babies were born with 6 fingers in one or both hands. We don’t bother to teach this because such happens so rarely. The ‘problem’ with teaching little children that, “father pays school fees”, is that the contrary is becoming common—Irresponsible husbands, baby mama phenomenon, divorcee, and worst of all, LGBT. On the whole, homes are becoming broken and more broken. The forces fragmenting families are remorseless—they won’t abate as far as I can see. To have a working love-filled family is becoming an exception rather than the rule.

There is no way we can wish away the crisis in family life. The implications of this crisis affects us every day. Children must be born. If they are unfortunate to be brought up in a dysfunctional setting, the world has added to the number of potential mischief-makers. Potential money ritualist. Potential terrorist. Potential child rapist. Potential treasury looter.

The cases of irresponsible husbands/fathers are now alarming. They are comfortable that the woman is the breadwinner and are not eager to end the imbalance. Some of them even maltreat the poor woman sweating to provide for the household. In some cases the wife comes to a point where she can no longer put up with his irresponsible behaviour and off she goes—separation or divorce.

Irresponsibility in a man is not first a financial fact. It is primarily a state of mind. Refusal to provide for the family is the outshoot. At the same time, a man could be able to provide for his ‘dependencies’ and yet be irresponsible. Many young music stars have about 4 baby mamas—4 children from 4 women and married to none! Since they are millionaires sending money to these children’s mothers is no big deal. But money won’t provide internal security to the children; it won’t be a source of guidance; it won’t give that heart-felt love that emanates from a father to his children.

Several research has shown that children who are raised by 2 parents, who are both responsible and dedicated, usually perform well in school. Not only that, the risk for emotional and behavioural problems are lower among children in 2-parent households on average. Crime statistics show that people from stable families are much less likely to be involved in crime than those from fragmented homes.

As much as it indeed better for a child to be raised in a 2-parent family, there is a caveat. They must both be responsible and dedicated. In some cases it is much better to be raised by a single parent than some 2-parent households. A household that has an abusive husband/father is damaging to the psyche of any child. Spouse violence, either mutual or one-sided, could lead to depression and low self-esteem in children.

The good old traditional family is one in which the father takes responsibility for his family. He looks out for the wife and children. In short, he is the head of the family. Now, does that mean he must out earn his wife? No, not necessarily. If husband is a teacher and wife is a medical doctor, all things being equal, wife would earn more than her man; or a situation in which the man is (temporarily) unemployed while the wife has a job. But this financial fact should not prevent him from taking responsibility for his wife and children. This awkward situation in which the man is not a contributor to the family upkeep can be very trying. This has led to many marital breakups. Some women believe that once they earn more than their husbands they get ‘promoted’ to headship of the family. But if managed wisely this situation could result in greater mutual respect for each other. The man may use this period to discover others way of showing love to his wife apart from providing money. And hopefully when he starts to earn again, he still continues in his hard times discoveries.

There is no need to discuss homosexual unions. Children raised in such places are denied an essential component of our common humanity. It would never result in a good outcome.