by Wade F. Horn Ph.D.
President, National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI)
Used by permission
JUST WHEN I THOUGHT it was safe to admit I am a psychologist, the American
Psychological Association (APA) goes and does something nutty yet again.
Last year the APA published a study advocating that the term child sexual abuse be
replaced, at least in some cases, with adult-child sex, a more "value neutral
term." Fortunately, after several months of defending the publication of that study,
the APA came to its senses and acknowledged that its not in the best interests of children
to define pedophilia down (boy, now there’s courage for you!).
No sooner had I completed my mental victory dance in celebration of this return to
sanity within the APA, then what should appear on my desk but the June 1999 issue of the
American Psychologist. Now, the American Psychologist is no obscure journal; in fact, it
is the only APA journal sent to every member of the American Psychological Association. It
is used routinely to espouse the viewpoint of the APA leadership.
So what was so upsetting about this issue of the American Psychologist? In its infinite
wisdom, the APA decided to publish as its lead article, a broadside against the fatherhood
movement — just in time for Father’s Day. They should have just sent a tie.
Titled "Deconstructing the Essential Father" and penned by Louise B.
Silverstein and Carl F. Auerbach, both of Yeshiva University, the authors of the article
make two arguments: First, fathers are really non- essential to the healthy development of
children. Second, marriage stinks. The authors begin their first argument by stating that
their "research experience has led us to conceptualize fathering in a way that is
very different from the neoconservative [Read: anyone who thinks fathers matter]
perspective." And what is their vast research experience? Over the past six years
they have studied the fathering experience of 200 — yes, a whole 200! — men. Now there’s
a representative, national sample for you!
While acknowledging that "the presence of a father may have positive effects on
the well-being of boys," two paragraphs later the authors come to the stunning
conclusion that "…the empirical literature does not support the idea that fathers
make a unique and essential contribution to child development."
There you go! Dads you don’t make a difference! So don’t worry about rushing home to
play ball with your kid in the backyard, you won’t be missed. According to these two
psychologists, all that is simply non-essential!
What the authors apparently missed, of course, is two decades of research attesting to
the impact of father absence on the well-being of children, including increased risk for
school failure, emotional and behavioral problems, juvenile crime, and teenage pregnancy.
But you don’t have to take my word for it. How about the word of Cornell University
professor Urie Bronfenbrenner, one of the most eminent developmental psychologists of our
time, who wrote: "Controlling for factors such as low income, children growing up in
[father absent] households are at a greater risk for experiencing a variety of behavioral
and educational problems, including extremes of hyperactivity and withdrawal; lack of
attentiveness in the classroom; difficulty in deferring gratification; impaired academic
achievement; school misbehavior; absenteeism; dropping out; involvement in socially
alienated peer groups, and the so-called ‘teenage syndrome’ of behaviors that tend to hang
together — smoking, drinking, early and frequent sexual experience, and in the more
extreme cases, drugs, suicide, vandalism, violence, and criminal acts." Ah, that Dr.
Bronfenbrenner, he must be some kinda right wing nutcase.
But the authors of this diatribe against the fatherhood movement are not content to
merely toss fatherhood into the trash can of irrelevancy, No, not by a long shot. The
authors go on to suggest that fathers are actually downright dangerous. The authors warn,
for example, of "the potential costs of father presence," and especially their
propensity to fritter away family resources on "gambling, purchasing alcohol,
cigarettes, or other nonessential commodities" thereby "actually increasing
women’s workload and stress level."
The real target, however, is not fathers, but marriage. In an extraordinary section
criticizing the idea that marriage matters, the authors assert that they can not find
"any empirical support that marriage enhances fathering or that marriage civilizes
men and protects children."
Really? No evidence whatsoever? So all those studies showing that married fathers, on
average, spend more time with their children than unmarried fathers are simply a figment
of the collective imagination of time-use researchers. And I guess the two decades of
research showing that marriage leads to men’s lower use of alcohol and drugs and greater
work effort is mere fabrication. And, of course, the hundreds, if not thousands, of
studies showing that children fare best in two-parent married households was simply made
up by those nasty old "neoconservatives."
In fact, the authors make the stunning assertion that the decline of marriage has
actually been a good thing because studies show a decline in the number of women murdered
by their intimate partners between 1976 and 1996. Note the use of the word partners, not
husbands. And, of course, no mention is made of the fact that child abuse rates have
tripled in that same time period, but I quibble.
The article then goes on to argue that divorce is not really all that bad for children.
As evidence, they cite the work of Paul Amato of the University of Nebraska who has
reported that "…although children from low-conflict marriages are negatively
effected by divorce, the adjustment of children in high-conflict marriages actually
improves after divorce."
What these authors leave out, however, is that Paul Amato estimates that only about 30%
of all divorces in America are the result of high-conflict marriages. Indeed, rather than
a defense of divorce, Paul Amato concludes that in the large majority of cases of divorce,
it is better for the children for the parents to stay married. It doesn’t seem to bother
these authors that they neglect to mention Paul Amato’s actual conclusion.
The point of all this silliness is to advocate against providing any funding for
programs that support fathers or marriage. Indeed, the authors assert that any attempt to
use government resources in this way is, by definition, discriminates against mothers and
"alternative family forms." Exactly why spending billions of dollars to support
father absent and non-married households is not discrimination against fathers and
marriage, these enlightened psychologists don’t say.
So there you have it. Dads don’t matter. In fact, they are downright dangerous. And the
only thing marriage does is promote domestic violence against women. Why? Because these
two psychologists say so, that’s why. After all, they have studied 200 fathers!
* * * * *
All About Families Newsletter
E-mail:
Mikal Frazier:
Discussion
No comments for “Fathers”