> > The article she talks about ("Deconstructing the essential father"
> > published in the June issue of AP) seems to be another meta-analysis
> > (that always suggest a lack of significant differences) that suggests
> > fathers are NOT essential to child development.
>
> This is not what what the study suggests according to the authors.
I'm not so sure...
Some excerpts from the article:
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."
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."
I read and reread their writing and it smacks more of ideology than science.
They 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." And spending billions of dollars to
support father absent and non-married households is not discrimination?
Just my little .02. I'm sure a lot of what they are saying will be misused and
distorted, but this research is just more (IMHO) of the wasteful nonsense
being published lately. We have these wonderful meta-analyses or reviews
that suggest things like:
-sexual abuse really isn't that bad
-divorce isn't that hard on children
-parents don't influence their adolescents' development
and now, neither mommy or daddy is essential!
Sounds good -- so basically I can do whatever the heck I want to and let my
kids be raised by just about any format you can come up with (you know,
Tarzan wound up being a pretty healthy kid being raised by monkeys) and
hang around with anyone they want to. Nothing matters.
I find it ironic that the prevailing thought in psychology used to be how much
parents screw up their children -- now we have those children growing up and
publishing research that suggests parents don't have any real impact on
child development. So, we blame mom and dad for our mess, but we're not
to blame for our children's?
*************************************************************************
Jim Guinee, Ph.D. Director of Training, Counseling Center
Adjunct Professor, Dept. of Psychology/Counseling
Dept. of Health Sciences
President-Elect, Arkansas College Counselor Association
University of Central Arkansas
313 Bernard Hall Conway, AR 72035
(501) 450-3138 (office) (501) 450-3248 (fax)
"When you are angry, do not sin; do not let
the sun go down on your wrath." Ephesians 4:26
************************************************************************
