http://mywebpages.comcast.net/ssewell38/father.htm

Fathers: Who Needs Them?
By Karl Zinsmeister

Before I begin talking about the influence of fathers it seems to me I
need to dispatch the question of whether fathers do anything for children
that is really distinct from what mothers do. As it happens, we can deal
with that issue quickly - because the debate over whether there are
intrinsic differences in the way men and women parent is now closed. 

Over the last decade or so psychologists, sociobiologists, and
neuroscientists have produced some powerful new evidence on sex 
differentiation. I've been sifting through a lot of it for the chapter on
fatherhood in the book I'm writing. And what we've learned, basically, is
that while mothers and fathers are both well-equipped to foster children,
their inclinations and methods of operating, their natural skills and
even their ways of perceiving tend to be quite different. 

We know, for instance, that infancy is a special time for mothers. They
have hormonal tools and distinct physiological advantages which allow
them to more easily read and satisfy a newborn baby, and investigators
find that in all types of families, mothers take charge in the initial
year to 18 months. The critical period for the father generally begins
when the child starts to interact with the impersonal world. 

There is a large measure of complementarity in male and female parenting.
The demands on fathers and mothers shift back and forth as a child passes
through different developmental stages. There is no question that men and
women tend to provide children with different things, in different ways.
There is not even a hint in the scientific literature that family role
androgyny is ever likely to occur among humans. Instead, there appear to
be strong physiological and bio-chemical barriers against it. 

WHEN FATHERS ARE PRESENT 

What are some of the useful things that a dad can provide to his children
when he is present in the home? Bronislaw Malinowski argued that the main
thing a father does is to place his children in the broader social
context, to help them understand the requirements for living in the world
outside the family. We know, just as a clinical finding, that exclusive
rearing by women restricts a child's environmental exploration and delays
development of some kinds of external competence. 

Psychologists and pediatricians have shown that even as early as their
third week of life, children experience and react to their father very
differently than their mother. Even the child's physical postures adjust
according to which parent is nearby. This is a reflection of the fact
that mothers and fathers generally approach their offspring with
different intentions in mind - with fathers coming to play and stimulate,
while mothers tend to soothe and caretake. (These findings, incidentally,
are not culture specific - they turn up in a number of different
countries.) Studies show that fathers also have a special role to play in
building a child's self-esteem. They are important too, in ways we don't
really understand, in developing internal limits and control in children. 

There is no question but that fathers tend to be far more effective at
discipline. In both intact and divorced families, for instance, children
are more likely to obey fathers than mothers. Researchers have found that
while "mothers are more active than fathers in helping youngsters with
personal problems... with regard to youthful drug use, fathers'
involvement is more important." 

Fathers play critical roles for their children as teachers. Clinical work
shows that fathers are more likely than mothers to encourage children to
explore the outer levels of their competence and withstand frustration.
They do more direct training and cognitive stimulation, their play has a
coaching emphasis, and they tend toward puzzles, word games, and
"learning" toys. As children get older, one area where fathers frequently
concentrate is in helping their offspring navigate through specific life
crises, for instance those surrounding puberty. 

Research also shows that fathers are critical in the establishment of
gender in children. Interestingly, fatherly involvement produces stronger
sexual identity and character in both boys and girls. It's well
established that the masculinity of sons and the femininity of daughters
are each greatest when fathers are active in family life. 

It would be idiotic to suggest that among the different traits and
capacities that fathers and mothers bring to the family any one set of
qualities is superior to another. The point is these varied skills and
outlooks combine in lovely ways to give children everything that they
need. A child who is highly involved with both parents has the full
spectrum of response from which to learn. 

WHEN FATHERS ARE ABSENT 

Having established that things go differently in families when fathers
are present, let's discuss more specifically what can happen when the
father is not there. Fatherless families and the children living in them
tend, as is well known, to have a lot of problems. One reason for this is
simply that the solo-mother family is short-handed. One brain, one mouth,
one pair of hands and eyes can't do as much parenting and providing as
two could. 

But there are also problems associated specifically with the lack of
masculine presence. These disadvantages shake out differently according
to the reason for the father's absence, with a father's withdrawal
usually producing more damaging effects on children than his death. The
problems also impinge differentially upon boys and girls. 

Boys are generally harder hit. They tend to have trouble concentrating in
school, to do poorly on intelligence tests, and to have difficulty with
math. Father absence has been shown to be associated with learning
disabilities, and some psychiatrists believe it is behind many of the
cases of hyperactivity and attention deficit disorder that particularly
afflict young boys. 

Fatherlessness significantly increases the likelihood of a boy becoming
violent, and it is very common for mothers - not to mention teachers,
counselors and others - to have difficulty handling fatherless teenage
boys in particular. 

Boys lacking a father at home are often confused about their male
identity. Studies show that compared to counterparts from intact families
they engage in more activities traditionally considered to be feminine,
and that they play more like girls. This tendency toward sex role
perplexity can develop in unpredictable ways as the youngster ages, with
many fatherless boys later veering toward a defensive machismo. This may
partly explain why boys in female-headed families often develop a
coercive relationship with their mother, as research has demonstrated. 

I think it's important we recognize that the bulk of our problem with
domestic and street violence today grows out of having too little
masculine authority at the base of society, not too much. Keep in mind
that the most fiercely misogynistic males in America today are those
raised in our inner city matriarchies. All those rap anthems about raping
and torturing women come out of a world wholly devoid of male presence. 

Fatherlessness produces in boys and girls both an exaggerated
peer-orientation, and tendencies toward juvenile delinquency and lack of
social control. Among girls, the effects of father absence are often
delayed, and only burst forth, in a kind of "sleeper effect," at puberty.
They are often acted out at that time in exaggeratedly flirtatious and
promiscuous sexual behavior. Difficulties in forming comfortable and
durable relations with men are very common among women who grow up
without a consistent fatherly presence. 

THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING TWO PARENTS 

What all this argues for is the importance to children of having two
resident parents. It's often claimed today that the two-parent
partnership is a kind of historical freak - an arbitrary invention of
neurotic Victorians, or maybe Eisenhower Republicans. This is historical
nonsense. In truth, the mother-father-child household is humankind's
universal childrearing institution. As you read through the historical
and anthropological literatures on this question, as I did last summer,
the thing that really strikes you is how the two-parent norm has held
constant, across enormous stretches of time and place and cultural
fashion, with relatively little variation. Indeed, we have fossil
findings suggesting that the nuclear family dates right back to the
beginnings of human existence. 

Very likely, the cultural processes which got human males involved in the
rearing of offspring were central to the successful emergence of homo
sapiens in the first place. And there are lots of indications that
fathers are at least as important to successful family life today as they
ever were in the past. Even if one ignores the research I've just
summarized on fathers' special roles, there is plenty of reason for pause
just in the findings on child-outcomes in single-parent families. 

When we talk about a single-parent family today, in nine cases out of ten
we're talking about a father-absent family. And in areas ranging from
physical health to income to behavior disorders to educational
attainment, children living in such households fare rather badly, on the
whole. 

>From the literature on non-intact families, let me briefly summarize some
findings that have relevance to the news events of the last month or so: 

Young people from single-parent families or stepfamilies are 2 to 3 times
as likely to have emotional or behavioral problems compared to those who
have both their father and mother present. They end up in psychotherapy
more than three times oftener, according to the National Survey of
Children. 

A study which tracked every child born on the Hawaiian Island of Kauai
found that five out of six delinquents with an adult criminal record came
from families where a parent - most always the father - was absent. 

U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics figures show that 70 percent of the
juveniles now in state reform institutions grew up in single-parent or
no-parent homes. The correlation between fatherlessness and street gang
membership is very close. Gangs exist basically for two purposes: to fill
an authority vacuum, and to satisfy an aching to belong - both functions
that are closely related to lack of fatherly presence. 

The rate of drug abuse is several times higher among adolescents living
apart from their father. 

Youngsters from decayed families score somewhat lower on intelligence
tests, even after adjusting for socio-economic variables, and have much
poorer records on measures of attendance, cooperation and effort at
school. Father-absent children require more discipline, have considerably
higher suspension rates, have lower GPA's, and repeat grades more often.

 Even after factoring in differences in economic and demographic
 background, students from fatherless families have lower college
 expectations, complete fewer years of schooling, and are far likelier to
 drop out of school altogether. 

Living in a mother-only family decreases a child's chances of completing
high school by over 40 percent for whites, and 70 percent for blacks. 

The poverty rate in single-mother families, after all government
transfers, is 31 percent, while the comparable figure for married
mother-father families is 5 percent. Demographic adjustments show that a
very significant portion of the rise in child poverty over the last two
decades is attributable simply and directly to growing fatherlessness.
The poverty of children in female-headed households is also much deeper
and more persistent. 

Welfare dependency is very high among fatherless children. Overall, about
half of all female-headed families will receive some public aid in any
given year. Even after adjustments for socio-economic factors are made,
living in a mother-only family as a child triples your probability of
becoming a welfare recipient later in life, for whites and blacks both. 

Economic differences between family types translate into very real
lifestyle gaps for children. For instance, 73 percent of children 
living with father and mother both reside in a home the family owns,
while two-thirds of single-parent children live in rentals. A child's
chances of residing in a public housing project are ten times higher when
only his mother is present. His odds of living in a suburb are far lower. 

Children growing up in single-parent homes tend to be sexually
precocious. Boys and girls both are much likelier to be having
intercourse in their early teens.

Fatherlessness tends to replicate itself. White girls, for instance, who
grow up in single-parent families are almost twice as likely to divorce,
and more than 2 1/2 times as likely to give birth out of wedlock compared
to counterparts who grow up with father and mother present. 

(Incidentally, one of the striking research findings of the last couple
years is that children in step-families and other re-combined households
suffer from many of the exact same problems that plague single-parent
children. In fact, they even experience some extra problems to boot.
Despite some rosy promises at the beginning of the family liberation
boom, none of the substitutes for biological families have turned out to
have reliably good results for children.) 

FAMILY STRUCTURE AND INDIVIDUAL WELL-BEING 

It's clear that the absence of natural fathers from family life is no
good for children. And then there are all the ways that the phenomenon
hurts adults. As terms like "the feminization of poverty" imply,
single-parent families have turned out to be pretty lousy places for
mothers to prosper in. 

Equally striking, and less often appreciated, is the fact that flight
from fatherhood has damaged the well-being of men too. Men unconnected to
children and wives have enormously higher rates of violence, accidents
and criminality than fathers and husbands. They have higher rates of
chronic disease, are committed for psychiatric treatment far more often,
and have much less success in the labor force. 

The point I'm leading to in all this can be illustrated with a little
story I heard recently: 

It seems two individuals were driving down a highway in a large truck
when they came to a bridge underpass with a big, stern sign in front of
it reading "Absolutely no vehicles over 11'3'' allowed." They pulled over
to the shoulder, and got out their measuring tape, and it turned out
their truck was 12'4'' tall. At this point, the second guy looked to the
driver and asked "So whadya think we should do?" The driver glanced both
ways, then answered: "Not a cop in sight... Let's chance it." There are
some rules, obviously, that it is futile to flaunt. All we do in ignoring
them is endanger ourselves and those traveling with us. This is
especially true when it is cultural, as opposed to legalistic, rules that
we are breaking. Most often, those guidelines are there for our own good. 

The informal laws that traditionally governed family structure are an
excellent example of this. The big yellow "Not Allowed" signs that
existed in this area were not there to punish or harass, but to try and
save as many people as possible from finding out what can happen when you
drive unprepared into the hard rocks or steel girders of reality. 

In this sense, the "biases" (if you will) in favor of stable marriage, of
two-parent childrearing, of fathers meeting their family obligations by
being present in the home, are all profoundly humane, people-serving
precepts. They became enshrined in daily life simply because, over time,
they produced the happiest results for the largest number of people. They
are collective preferences evolved from centuries of hard experience and
time-testing. 

ON TAKING FATHERLESSNESS SERIOUSLY 

Let me close by pointing out that the surge of fatherlessness and family
decay that began about 25 years ago correlates closely to the surges in
crime, drug use, child poverty, and educational droop that currently
bedevil American society. One of the theses of the book I'm working on is
that the connection between our family collapse and these social
breakdowns is no coincidence. If we're going to solve the societal
problems that plague us most deeply today, I believe, we're going to have
to encourage movement back toward what could be referred to as the
"natural family," made up of father, mother and child. 

Toward this end, we need to experiment with measures to reinvigorate
marriage, and to actively discourage illegitimacy, divorce and family
abandonment. While creation of a solo-mother family is the leading route
into household poverty and childhood pathology today, the leading routes
out continue to be marriage and commitment-related: Simply avoiding a
birth out-of-wedlock and finishing high school, for instance, gives
blacks and whites alike a 9 out of 10 chance of avoiding poverty.
Likewise, mothers who have been abandoned but then remarry see their
family income nearly double. This, in other words, is not just some
symbolic issue. Marriage and family solidarity work, and practical policy
ought to acknowledge that. 

In places where the fatherly collapse is worst, I believe we're going to
have to try and reintroduce male family virtues in more artificial ways
as well. In certain of our inner-cities we should be setting up some
residential schools for boys and girls, plus some all-male public
academies - perhaps staffed by decommissioned military officers, who know
something about building discipline, self-respect and collective morale. 

Of course, every effort along these lines in the recent past has quickly
been squashed by the liberal establishment. A few months ago I
interviewed the principals of two of the special schools that the Detroit
and Milwaukee public education systems tried to set up last year
specifically for black males, and they were absolutely livid that
lawsuits from the National Organization for Women and the ACLU had
blocked both projects. Feminists refuse to consider single-sex schools,
writer Leon Podles has argued, because that would undermine their claim
to "a monopoly of gender victimization." "Better many black boys die
bleeding from gunshot wounds," he writes in bitter amazement, "than allow
any government policy that presupposes there are significant differences
between the male and female of the species, and that the differences
sometimes work to the disadvantage of the male." 

One final suggestion: in families that are currently intact, we need to
help link fathers more closely to their children. There is an emotional
as well as physical aspect to father presence, and an interested and
involved dad will always beat a lump at the end of the couch. But none of
this is going to happen until influential sectors of American society
stop treating fathers as a kind of optional equipment. So long as we
continue to rationalize father absence and excuse father flight, I'm
afraid we're going to have lots of work to keep our psychiatrists, and
social workers, and police officers very busy. 

---

Karl Zinsmeister is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. 

---

Distributed by Family Resources & Research
10202 Vanderbilt Drive 
Naples, FL 34108 

---

Statistics 

"Ninety percent of divorced fathers have less than full access to their
children." Jonathan M. Honeycutt, Ph.D.(c), M.P.A., M.A., I.P.C. Director
of Research, Clinical & Consulting Psychotherapist, National Institute
for Divorce Research, Panama City, Florida. 

Children from fatherless homes account for: 

63% of youth suicides. (Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services,
Bureau of the Census). 

71% of pregnant teenagers. (Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services) 

90% of all homeless and runaway children. 

70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless
homes (DOJ, Special Report) 

85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders. (Source:Center for
Disease Control). 

80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger. (Source: Criminal Justice
& Behavior, Vol. 14, p. 403-26). 

71% of all high school dropouts. (Source: National Principals Association
Report on the State of High Schools). 

75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers. (Source:
Rainbows for all God`s Children). 

85% of all youths sitting in prisons. (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail
populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 

The State of Fatherhood 

37.9% of fathers have no access/visitation rights. (Source: p.6, col.II,
para. 6, lines 4 & 5, Census Bureau P-60, #173, Sept 1991.) 

"40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the non-custodial
father's visitation on at least one occasion, to punish the ex-spouse."
(Source: p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing Fulton) 

Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by
Fathers and Mothers. Sanford Braver et al, Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry,
1991.) "Overall, approximately 50% of mothers "see no value in the
father's continued contact with his children...." (Source: Surviving the
Breakup, Joan Kelly & Judith Wallerstein, p. 125) 

Only 11% of mothers value their husband's input when it comes to handling
problems with their kids. Teachers & doctors rated 45%, and close friends
& relatives rated %16.(Source: EDK Associates survey of 500 women for
Redbook Magazine. Redbook, November 1994, p. 36) 

"The former spouse (mother) was the greatest obstacle to having more
frequent contact with the children." (Source: Increasing our
understanding of fathers who have infrequent contact with their children,
James Dudley, Family Relations, Vol. 4, p. 281, July 1991.) 

"A clear majority (70%) of fathers felt that they had too little time
with their children." (Source: Visitation and the Noncustodial Father,
Mary Ann Kock & Carol Lowery, Journal of Divorce, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 54) 

"Very few of the children were satisfied with the amount of contact with
their fathers, after divorce." (Source: Visitation and the Noncustodial
Father, Koch & Lowery, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, Vol. 8, No. 2,
p. 50) 

"Feelings of anger towards their former spouses hindered effective
involvement on the part of fathers; angry mothers would sometimes
sabotage father's efforts to visit their children." (Source: Ahrons and
Miller, Am. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 63. p. 442, July '93.) 

"Mothers may prevent visits to retaliate against fathers for problems in
their marital or post-marital relationship." (Source: Seltzer, Shaeffer &
Charing, Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol. 51, p. 1015, November
1989.) 

In a study: "Visitational Interference - A National Study" by Ms. J
Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward Nichols, M.S.W., it was found that 77%
of non-custodial fathers are NOT able to "visit" their children, as
ordered by the court, as a result of "visitation interference"
perpetuated by the custodial parent. In other words, non-compliance with
court ordered visitation is three times the problem of non-compliance
with court ordered child support and impacts the children of divorce even
more. Originally published Sept. 1992 

---

Child Support 

Information from multiple sources show that only 10% of all noncustodial
fathers fit the "deadbeat dad" category: 90% of the fathers with joint
custody paid the support due. Fathers with visitation rights pay 79.1%;
and 44.5% of those with NO visitation rights still financially support
their children. (Source: Census Bureau report. Series P-23, No. 173). 

Additionally, of those not paying support, 66% are not doing so because
they lack the financial resources to pay (Source: GAO
report:GAO/HRD-92-39 FS). 

The following is sourced from: Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security
Policy, Oct. 1991, Authors: Meyer and Garansky. 

Custodial mothers who receive a support award: 79.6% 

Custodial fathers who receive a support award: 29.9% 

Non-custodial mothers who totally default on support: 46.9% 

Non-custodial fathers who totally default on support: 26.9% 


--------------------------------------

"Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of
external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of
heresies was common sense." - George Orwell, 1984