 |
Taking Every Thought Captive |
 Got Life? Our Ministry Our Beliefs Our Staff Articles Contact Us Resources Bookstore Search Links
|
FATHERLESS
A Book Review By D. Massimo Lorenzini David Blankenhorn, Fatherless
Introduction David Blankenhorn is a sociologist and founder and president of the Institute for American Values, a private, non-partisan organization devoted to research, publication, and public education on family issues. He is a frequent lecturer and the author of The Future of Marriage (Encounter Books, 2007) and editor of Rebuilding the Nest: A New Commitment to the American Family. In Fatherless America,
now considered the “Bible of the fatherhood movement,” Blankenhorn demonstrates
that the Summary In Part 1 Blankenhorn discusses the problem of
fatherlessness with examples from contemporary American culture. Does every
child need a father? Increasingly society’s answer is “no,” or at least “not
necessarily.” But it wasn’t always so. In colonial With the industrial age came major changes in society. Fathers who once worked at or near the home now spent their days away from home. The gradual feminization of the domestic sphere began to take place. As Joseph H. Pleck observed, “A gradual and steady shift toward a greater role for the mother and a decreased and indirect role for the father, is clear and unmistakable” (14). Beginning in the 19th century child-rearing manuals were addressed to mothers and child custody shifted from fathers to mothers (14). While this change represented a weakening of fatherhood, it was not the undoing of it. What then has brought about the downfall of the idea of fatherhood in the minds of so many today? Blankenhorn noted, “Structurally, the preconditions for effective fatherhood are twofold: co-residency with children and a parental alliance with the mother” (18). The major culprits in the decline of fatherhood are divorce and out of wed-lock child birth.[1] During the period of 1960-1990 in the The Effects of
Fatherlessness In chapter two, “Fatherless Society,” Blankenhorn surveys the most urgent social problems: crime, violence, teen-pregnancy, child sexual abuse, poverty, domestic violence against women, drug abuse, etc., and demonstrates that fatherlessness is the leading indicator of each of these issues. Youth Violence. After giving several examples, Blankenhorn identifies the common thread in the increased amount of youth violence—fatherlessness. He goes so far as to state a general rule: “Boys raised by traditionally masculine fathers generally do not commit crimes. Fatherless boys commit crimes (30). The reason is that both clinical studies and anthropological investigations confirm that boys seek to separate from their mothers in search of the meaning of maleness. In this process, the father is irreplaceable. When this process of male identity does not succeed (including separating from the mothers), one main result, in clinical terms, is rage. Another result is hypermasculinity (boys who must prove their manhood all by themselves). Current findings show that children living apart from their fathers are far more likely to be expelled or suspended from school, display emotional and behavioral problems, have difficulty getting along with peers, and get in trouble with the police (31). Domestic Violence. From 1979 to 1987 about 57,000 women per year were violently assaulted by their husbands. But 200,000 women per year were assaulted by boyfriends and 216,000 by ex-husbands. Of all violent crimes against women committed by intimates during this period, about 65% were committed by either boyfriends or ex-husbands, compared with 9% by husbands (35). Blankenhorn describes the ingredients of domestic violence: “The boyfriend father . . . is the biological father of his girlfriend’s child, but his relationship with the mother is sporadic, ambivalent, and unstable. On the one hand, he is proud of his child and cares about his child. As a father, he has the right to make claims and to be involved. One the other hand, his commitment to the mother is weak and variable. Moreover, because the mother understands this fact, she may well decide that she no longer wants him around. For these reasons he may well treat her with resentment and even rage, in part because he dislikes being obligated to her, and in part because she alone largely controls something that is important to him. In addition, his anger may be stoked by humiliation as he comes to suspect—and to be told by the mother, perhaps as she shows him the door—that he is letting her and their child down and thus failing a test of manhood. This increasingly common situation is highly combustible—an unstable mixture of sexual proprietariness, concern for offspring, resentment, and relative powerlessness” (36). Child Sexual Abuse. Compared to living with both parents, living in a single-parent home doubles the risk that a child will suffer physical, emotional, or educational neglect. But in cases of sexual abuse, it is now regularly identified that the growing presence of unrelated males in household with children is directly linked with the increase in child sexual abuse (39). Child Poverty and Economic Security. The most tangible and immediate consequence of fatherlessness for children is the loss of economic resources. In married-couple homes with preschool children, median family income in 1992 was approximately $41,000; in single-mother homes with young children, median income was about $9,000—a ratio of more than 4 to 1. Of all married-couple families in the nation in 1992, about 6 percent lived in poverty; of all female-headed families, about 35 percent lived in poverty—a ratio of almost 6 to 1 (42). Most scholars now believe there is a causal link between fatherlessness and poverty (43). Across history and cultures, the central tasks of fatherhood have been protection and provision. For fatherless children, there is a lack of both. Adolescent
Childbearing. After
protection and provision, the central task of fatherhood is cultural
transmission; it is the development of character and competence, teaching
children a way of life (45). “For boys, the most socially acute manifestation
of paternal disinvestment is juvenile violence. For girls, it is juvenile and
out of wedlock childbearing” (45). Fatherlessness results in boys with guns and
girls with babies. In 1991, the rate of teen childbearing reached 62.1 per
1,000 girls, the highest level since 1971 (prior to legalized abortion) (46). The solution to all of these social problems, and more, is fathers. Government programs, prisons, restraining orders, self-esteem initiatives, or any other effort cannot offset paternal disinvestment. Children need fathers. The Idea of
Fatherhood Actual fatherhood is on the decline due to divorce and non-marital childbirth; but what about the idea of fatherhood? Is fatherhood something we should defend? Do we need fathers? These questions have never before needed to be asked because fatherhood has always been taken granted as part of the most basic fabric of society. What we are witnessing in our day with the decline of fatherhood is the demise of the oldest social institution in history—the nuclear family (mother, father, children). Until recent times, no known society has ever thought of fathers as potentially unnecessary. Marriage and the nuclear family are the most universal social institutions in existence. In no society has non-marital childbirth been the norm. The Unnecessary Father. Over the past two hundred years fatherhood has been in decline and has lost, in full or in part, each of its traditional roles: head of family, breadwinner, moral educator, protector. Many today believe that a father is simply unnecessary. The expert story of fatherhood generally assumes fatherhood to be superfluous. Children need a parent, not necessarily a father (67). The idea of superfluous fatherhood rests on three propositions, according to Blankenhorn. The first is that fatherhood as a gender-based social role is literally what the dictionary defines as superfluous: exceeding what is necessary. Second, men in general, and fathers in particular, are part of the problem. Third, social progress depends largely upon a transformation of fatherhood based on the ideal of gender role convergence (i.e. androgyny) (67). Gender role convergence as an ideal is rooted in the view that maleness is problematic. The “Old Father” is not welcomed anymore. He is the “breadwinner who does not have the ability or desire to nurture his child day-by-day, so he funds the family but keeps his distance” (87). The Old Father is resented because he wields power. He controls. He decides. He is viewed with suspicion and resentment by his wife, his children, and society. These critics object to paternal identity; to “splitting”—the division of humanity into masculine and feminine, dominant and submissive. “Gender polarity” is seen as “the deep source of discontent in our culture” (90). The “unnecessary father” was displayed on the CBS sit-com Murphy Brown in which the lead character decided to have a child without a father. When Vice President Dan Quayle criticized the show for “mocking the importance of fathers,” a national controversy erupted. On a subsequent episode Murphy took her revenge rebuking Quayle on air for his “painfully unfair” remark about the necessity of fathers and reminded viewers that “families come in all shapes and sizes” (69). Based on the aftermath, Quayle, along with fatherhood, came out the loser and Murphy Brown came out the winner. Child-bearing outside of wed-lock has lost its stigma in our society. Single teen moms are often considered role models as are celebrities like actress Michelle Pfieffer who decided to raise a child on her own. We are now expected to be more aware of and accepting of fatherlessness (83). The New Father. A new fatherhood “script” is being disseminated throughout American culture in scholarly writing and college textbooks, children’s books, professional conferences, popular magazines, parenting books, newspapers, etc. If there is a role for a man in a family, it is as the emasculated “parent.” The new father is to be less father and more mother. He is to be more involved in the daily care of children. Whereas the old father viewed breadwinning and parenthood as overlapping domains, the new father is to see them as conflicting domains (much like mothers do). Just as working mothers experience “role strain,” the new prescription for fathers is role strain. In The Myth of Masculinity, Joseph H. Pleck urges men to reject traditional gender roles. Instead he urges: “Each sex experiences sex role strain in its paid work and family roles” (113). Blankenhorn summarizes the future of fatherhood: “From role complementariness to role strain. From work/family synergy to work/family conflict, or what is frequently called work/family ‘juggling.’ From a gendered understanding of a father’s work to a genderless conception of a parent’s work. These are the premises of the New Father at work” (114). Blankenhorn disparages this new role for fathers saying that it will do nothing to motivate fathers to provide for their children. Detaching breadwinning from fatherhood will result in less paternal provision and a further weakening of fatherhood as a social role and the growing material impoverishment of large numbers of children. The new father is an unnecessary father. He offers nothing a mother cannot provide. Without the sexual division of labor within the family, one parent is unnecessary. Gender role convergence (androgyny) ultimately reflects the triumph of radical individualism and the desire for human omnipotentiality. It is the belief that human completion is a solo act. We are to seek “the end of the gender split,” we are told, because “until we are willing to question the very idea of a male sex role . . . we will be denying both men and women their full humanity” (91). The concern is with self-actualization, not the welfare of the child. The Understudies. In the next few chapters, Blankenhorn describes the “understudies” of fatherhood: The deadbeat dad, the visiting father, the sperm father, the stepfather, and the nearby guy. These roles, according to Blankenhorn, amount to less than actual fathering. These men do not meet the minimum requirement of a “good-enough” father. To be a good-enough father, a man must reside with his own children and sustain a parental alliance with the mother of his children” (126). Blankenhorn goes to great lengths to demonstrate that each of these roles fail to provide what children need—a father on the premises committed to the welfare of his children. Space does not permit me to go into any further description of these roles. The
Good Family Man. In the
last section, Blankenhorn provides a portrait of the good father and offers
some suggestions for reversing the trend toward fatherlessness in After brainstorming with the focus groups he asked them to consolidate their answers into a definition of a good family man (or father). One group came up with this: 1. Puts his family first (is responsible for his family; cares for his family; makes sacrifices for his family, not self; spends time on family activities); 2. Good and steady provider; 3. Sets a good example (high moral character; “being there” for the family; steadiness, won’t bail out; admits mistakes). Another group came up with this as their final definition: 1. Provider and protector (knows the value of money); 2. Shows love of spouse and children through actions; 3. Biblical and moral values (spiritual leader; good role model; good listener; takes time for his family; balances priorities; problem solver, teacher, guidance counselor); 4. Flexibility (sharing workload as a partner). Much of the expert discourse today about fatherhood deconstructs the father into its constituent parts (the money part, the biological part; the psychological part, the child-care part; the housework part). Any one part is “not that important” and could be theoretically provided by someone other than a father. But for the men who are actual fathers living with their kids and the mother of their kids, these individual parts come together to make up one man: the good father. What finally emerged from the focus group study were four roles of a good father: Provider, Protector, Nurturer, and Sponsor. First, these men ignore the New Father imperative regarding breadwinning and assume they are the primary breadwinners for their families. They never bragged about it, but assumed it was their primary responsibility. It was how they served their families. Second, these fathers protect their families whether by immediate safety or by preparation (teaching and instilling). Third, these fathers help their wives in the day-to-day management of the household and in providing affection and attention to the children. These fathers also lean on their wives to work together in nurturing the children. Mutual dependence and complementariness was a major factor. Fourth, and possibly most important, these fathers invest in their children paternal sponsorship (or what could be called cultural transmission). This is the heart of fatherhood; someone who prepares their child for life by endowing character and competence. Evaluation and Conclusion I found Blankenhorn’s book to be an extremely enlightening study of fatherlessness and fatherhood. It was difficult going at times because of the plethora of studies and research he cites throughout the book; oftentimes every paragraph highlighted a different study or researcher’s findings. I also found it very interesting and, I believe, conclusive that Blankenhorn made his case entirely on the basis of sociological research. He has successfully established the case for fatherhood without having to resort to philosophical or religious argumentation (not that there’s anything wrong with that, but he made his case purely with “facts”). Blankenhorn successfully demonstrated that much of the problem of fatherlessness has to do with the feminization of society. The standard for what it means to be a man and a father must be reasserted and championed by those who wish to see a reversal of the decline of fatherhood. That minimum standard is a man who lives with his children and is married to their mother. Good fathers are those who put their family first and should be celebrated as contributors to the good, not only of their family, but of society. All human ideologies are an attempt to resolve some or all of the tension of living in a fallen world. Feminist analysis of culture parallels Marx’s analysis of the economy. Each focuses on the problem of authority: who has the power and who does not. Each offers a total theory, positing one social evil as the driving force behind all of reality, including all social injustice. Marx located the evil in the organization of the economy. Feminism locates it in the organization of the family. For Marx the central dynamic of society is class conflict. For Feminism, it is gender conflict. The Christian position is to live in God’s world according to God’s Word which teaches that history is made up of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation. We currently live in the already/not yet tension of redemptive history. We cannot build a utopia in the here and now. We await the consummation (not yet) of our redemption (already) realizing we will not have a perfect world until we are perfected in glory. In the meantime, we do our best to promote gender-based families that contribute to the welfare of children, the happiness of parents, the stability of society, and the glory of God. The good family man may be a “dinosaur,” “a rare breed” in today’s society, but that doesn’t mean we give up on him. Indeed, since most societal problems stem from fatherlessness, we should do our utmost to recover the idea of the good family man as the ideal man. No doubt many will misunderstand and malign this effort, but it is worth doing regardless. As Blankenhorn observes, “At stake is nothing less than what it means to be a man, who our children will be, and what kind of society we will become” (2). We simply cannot live without him. [1] Included in out of wed-lock child birth is the use of alternative methods of reproduction such as the sperm bank, surrogacy, and in vitro fertilization by unmarried mothers. |
