Hi Jim and Tipsters,
Jim Guinee wrote:
> 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."
It is all to easy to take quotes out of context to make a specific point. This
is one of the problems noted by the original authors.
Additionally, as the original authors stated, their article was geared towards a
professional audience. They hoped it would stimulate discussion - particularly
discussion concerning the importance of responsible fathering. Certainly, a
discussion of the empirical literature and the lack of support for a unique
fatherly contribution in that literature can be an impetus for such discussion.
There statement is not a statement of conclusion but rather a reporting of
research finding.
It is important to remember that the statement concerning "unique and essential"
can be interpreted many ways. For example, is the role so unique that a
step-father, close uncle, a grandfather, etc. could not met the child's needs
consistently? Is the role essential such that a child without a father is doomed
to psychological difficulties?
> 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."
I'm sure that are cases (more than perhaps we would like to acknowledge) where the
presence of the biological father is indeed harmful to the child. I think it
would be difficult to claim that all fathers or all mothers are essential and make
a positive contribution to child development. There are potential costs to a
child if they are "parented" by a mother or father with an alcohol problem, a
gambling problem, etc. The question being raised is whether the father (and one
could argue mother as well) is so essential that no matter the potential cost the
child must live with that father.
> 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."
While child development is not my primary focus, I do teach human development on
both the graduate and undergraduate level. I have not seen any studies providing
any empirical support for those either (it may exist but I am not familiar with
it). On the anecdotal side, I know wonderful fathers who are married and
caregiving within the context of marriage. I also know wonderful fathers who are
not/no longer married and caregive outside the context of marriage. I'm not sure
that it is the marital relationship that defines the quality of one's parenting
abilities. This. of course, should be tested empirically.
>
> 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?
I'll simply reiterate their previous statement - one of their three major
proposals for social change is:
3. Governmental supports for families. The U. S. remains one of the few
industrialized nations that does not provide extensive governmental supports to
help families balance the stress of work and caring for small children. Without
paid parental leave and subsidized, high quality day care, the responsibility for
raising small children continues to fall primarily on mothers. This contributes
to the marginalization of fathers in families.
> 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
I believe that it said that sexual contact under the age of 18 may not always have
a negative impact on psychological development.
> -divorce isn't that hard on children
I believe that it stated that the negative effects are most often noticed in the
first year and are primarily the result of intense conflict. Additionally, over
time, no consistent negative effects are found as a result of the divorce.
> -parents don't influence their adolescents' development
See Tips archives for this discussion
> and now, neither mommy or daddy is essential!
The key is the word "essential". This is very different than "important",
"valuable", etc. Essential implies that the individual is always necessary and
irreplaceable. Thus, no matter how harmful, the father must be involved in the
child's life as they are essential. No matter how destructive the marriage, the
parents must remain together as the father is essential within the home.
To reiterate their comments: We believe that warm, nurturing fathering is
important for children, for mothers, and for fathers.
> 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 do not believe that such irresponsibility has been advocated by any of the above
meta-analyses or writings.
> 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?
Actually, I believe it implies a middle ground. Really great parents and really
harmful parents do impact their child's development in significant ways. Thus,
credit/blame for those folks. Most other parents are loving their kids, muddling
through doing the best they can, and share a great deal of commonality in terms of
cultural parenting styles. In that case, other factors such as schools, peers,
etc are much more likely to have a impact in creating significant differences
between kids. Someone just recently phrased this better than I - perhaps, they
can jump in!
Warm regards,
linda
--
linda m. woolf, ph.d.
associate professor - psychology
webster university
main webpage: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/
Holocaust and genocide studies pages:
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/holocaust.html
womens' pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/women.html
gerontology pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/gero.html
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
