‘Times’ Calls for More Male Role Models While Ignoring Role of Fathers
The New York Times concluded last weekend what Focus on the Family (now, officially, a “hate group”) has argued for years — boys need positive male role models.
In “What Happens When Most of the Adults in Boys’ Lives are Women,” Times reporter Claire Cain Miller writes, “At a crucial time in their lives, boys are increasingly cared for by women, especially the many boys whose fathers aren’t a regular presence,” continuing:
The Times deserves credit for finding and printing the truth. Legacy media too frequently parrot modern lies about the natural family unit being “racist,” “homophobic” or a Western invention.
That said, the article’s treatment of the truth leaves much to be desired.
Anthropologists and sociologists have agreed on the social value of male leadership for going on a century. In her book Male and Female, renowned cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead concluded:
The Times‘ piece omits anthropology and sociology altogether. Rather, Miller presents her elementary conclusion — that girls aren’t the only ones who benefit from male roles models — like revelatory, potentially controversial information.
“Much academic research on the role model effects has been about girls,” she prevaricates, “but some studies have shown how having men in their lives helps boys.”
“Some studies?” Try more than six decades of anthropological social research and debate, all of which show fathers are far and away the most influential role models in young boys’ lives. They are irreplaceable.
Here’s a small sample of what we know.
Children that grow up in a house with a married mother and father are, on average:
- Dramatically more likely to meet benchmarks for healthy development.
- More likely to graduate college.
- Less likely to be impoverished, both as a child and an adult.
- Less likely to be convicted of a crime.
- Less likely to experience childhood depression.
- Less likely to have children young.
Children with unmarried or divorced parents, conversely, face significant challenges. A report on the long-term effects of divorce from the National Bureau of Economic Research found children of divorced parents face dramatically reduced life outcomes as teens and adults compared to peers with married parents, including:
- A 60% increase in teen births.
- A 20% increase in child mortality.
- A 40-45% increase in incarceration rates.
- A significant decrease in income as an adult.
- A decreased chance of attending college.
Scholars attribute these challenges to three factors: a substantial decline in household income, an increased likelihood of living in a low-quality neighborhood and “obvious distance and disaffection from at least one parent” — usually the father.
Importantly, the same report found 95% of children live with their mother after a divorce.
Fathers demonstrate similar absence in households where they are not married to their children’s mother. Melissa Kearney, noted economist and author of Two Parent Privilege, tells Focus on the Family’s Jim Daly only 25% of children living with a single mom get child support from their father.
“These kids are much less likely to have the benefit of contributed engagement with a nonresident parent [the father] or even financial support going forward,” she concludes.
A recent report cites Rob Palkovitz, a human development and family studies scholar at the University of Delaware, who explains paternal engagement, specifically, increases educational attainment in children of both sexes. Children with engaged fathers are also significantly less likely to experience depression, poverty and neighborhood violence.
Palkovitz writes:
Perhaps the most dramatic evidence of a father’s impact on boys comes from the Institute for Family Studies (IFS), which performed data analysis showing young men from intact families were just as likely to graduate college (36%) as men from father-absent families were likely to go to prison.
Though the Times’ article acknowledges growing up without a father “particularly disadvantages boys,” its solution to boys’ lack of male role models, curiously, has nothing to do with fathers. Instead, it recommends more men:
- Take jobs working with children.
- Lead extra-curricular and community activities.
- Train to become “effective mentors” to boys.
It’s unclear whether Miller is unaware of the larger anthropological context in which she is writing or simply unwilling to acknowledge it. But recommending more men become teachers to address boys’ lack of role models, as opposed to addressing fatherless and broken homes, is like treating a paper cut on a gun-shot victim. It misses the point entirely.
Additional Articles and Resources
Married Fatherhood is Key to Recovering Thriving Masculinity
Different Family Forms Lead to Prison or College for Young Men
Important New Research on How Married Parents Improve Child Well-Being
New Scholarly Fatherhood Report Offers Important New Insights
Premier Research Documents Long-Term Divorce Harms for Adult Children
New Report Gives Update on Family Formation and Child Well-Being
The Two-Parent Privilege: Understanding Contemporary Family Formation
Myth Buster: The Religious Right Didn’t Start the Family Culture War
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
