by Trish Wilson
(soon to appear in the August, 1999 issue of Feminista!)
"Deconstructing the Essential Father"
Louise B. Silverstein and Carl F. Auerbach of Yeshiva University
Cheryl B. Tavris, Action Editor
June 1999 American Psychologist
"Decon..." was written as a criticism of David Blankenhorn and David
Popenoe's work claiming that "fathers are essential to positive child
development and that responsible fathering is most likely to occur
within the context of heterosexual marriage."
In the opening statements of "Decon...", Silverstein and Auerbach noted
how "this perspective is generating a range of governmental initiatives
designed to provide social support preferences to fathers over mothers
and to heterosexual married couples over alternative family forms," and
propose that the "neoconservative position is an incorrect or
oversimplified interpretation of empirical research."
The term "essential" in "essential father" refers to the concept of
essentialism, that is, the idea that there are biological sex
differences
between women and men that create a difference in parenting methods and
emphases between the genders. Feminists believe that this concept of
"separate spheres" has been discredited since the turn of the last
century."
In opposition to the neoconservative position, Silverstein and Auerbach
argue that neither mothers nor fathers are essential to child
development, that parenting roles are interchangeable, that the
significant variables in predicting father involvement are economic
rather than marital, and that responsible fathering can occur within a
variety of family structures. Over the past six years, they have
studied the fathering identities of men who are actively involved with
their children. They used a wide range of cross-species,
cross-cultural, and social science research, including their own study
of 200 men, to reach these conclusions. Those 200 men were divided into
10 different subcultures with U. S. society, including Haitian
Christian fathers; Promise Keeper fathers; gay fathers; Latino fathers;
White, nongay divorced fathers; Modern Orthodox Jewish fathers; and
Greek grandfathers. They have concluded that children need "at least
one responsible, caretaking adult who has a positive emotional
connection to them and with whom they have a consistent relationship."
They have also found that "the stability of the emotional connection
and the predictability of the caretaking relationship are the
significant variables that predict positive child adjustment." In the
end, they examine why the neoconservative perspective has become so
widely accepted within popular culture. They then offer social policy
recommendations that support men in their fathering role without
discriminating against women and same-sex couples.
CRITICISM
The authors have been criticized in the general media for admitting to
holding a political agenda. The emphasis of feminist psychology is that
all
articles are written with some sort of slant or bias. The standpoint
that is called "objective" is merely the accepted mainstream bias. By
the standards of feminist psychology, the upfront admission of bias
contributes to quality research. Science, according to "Decon...", is
"always structure by values, both in the research questions that are
generated and in the interpretation of data." Haraway (1989) pointed
out that "as research paradigms evolve to reflect diverse gender,
ethnic, class, and cultural perspectives, much of the established body
of "scientific fact" has turned out to be science fiction. Fischhoff
(1990) identified two options for psychologists in the public arena:
helping the public define their best interests or manipulating the
public to serve the interests of policymakers." (1) The purpose of this
article was to stimulate ongoing, scholarly debate amongst other
psychologists with the acknowledgement that new data may prove some
aspects of their argument wrong. The authors hope that, by stimulating
scholarly debate, they will assist the public in defining its best
interests.
The authors cite research indicating that parenting roles are
interchangeable; that neither fathers nor mothers are unique or
essential. Their refutation of biologically-based parenting roles may
be true. However, their focus on the few primary caregiving fathers,
gay fathers, single dads, etc., gives short shrift to the mothers who
are currently doing the job. Primary caregiving fathers and fathers who
are very actively involved with their children are rare. Mothers, not
fathers, continue to take on the bulk of the day to day childrearing
and housekeeping, whether or not they work outside the home. It is true
that a wide variety of family structures may support positive child
outcomes. However, more focus should be placed on assisting the mothers
who are already doing the job, rather than seeking ways to ensure that
fathers are able to become more active in their children's live based
on the experiences of a few primary caregiving and outside-the-norm
fathers.
In their conclusion, the authors state that "most men must accept some
degree of responsibility for child care and household tasks" as well as
citing a "new context of power sharing and role sharing." Most men
choose to avoid taking on this additional responsibility, shared or
otherwise. Ensuring "a high level of paternal involvement for resident
as well as nonresident fathers" lies not with social policy but with
the fathers themselves. Silverstein and Auerbach have fallen for the
myth that a fathers' relationship with his children following divorce
or due to not being married to the children's mother is contingent on
"social policy ... that removes the impediments to paternal involvement
for never-married and divorced fathers." According to Srouf, in the
periods of high stress following the breakup of a marriage, "it is
difficult for parents to realize that no one (including their spouse or
a new step-parent) can take their relationships with children away from
them. The hallmark of attachment relationships is their durability.
Neither physical separation nor death terminates attachments." (2)
Pleck's finding, cited in "Decon...", of a "reluctance in fathers to
take advantage of family-supportive policies because they fear that
they will be perceived as uncommitted to their job or unmasculine"
ignores the fact that these children need parenting, and that mothers
continue to do it, regardless of how parenting affects their jobs or
femininity. A man may be perfectly capable of caring for his child. He
may say he wishes to parent his child. However, that wish means nothing
if he makes one excuse after another when asked why he has not actively
engaged himself in the role. The role of fatherhood has not changed
much at all, despite the new myth that fathers are equal parents. There
is a great deal of "compelling evidence of a change in the contemporary
meaning of fatherhood for men, but not so much that men have become
equal partners in parenthood." (3) The image of fatherhood has changed,
but not the practical reality behind it.
It is a myth that fathers are taking on more childcare and housekeeping
than they used to. According to "The Meaning of Fatherhood," "[i]t
appears, from a variety of data sources, that most fathers still do
very little child care, especially when the children are very young. To
be sure, there has been a change in the meaning of fatherhood, as
reflected in both the attitude and the behavior of fathers, largely as
a result of a general shift in less gender-specific family roles
(Thornton and Freedman, 1983; Stein, 1984). But, Pleck (1985) and
others, who have done extensive research on this question, has
concluded that most of these changes have been relatively modest." (4)
Research conducted by Francine Deutsch (5) and Daniel Evan Weiss (5)
have come to similar conclusions regarding the lack of attention
fathers pay towards domestic work.
The push for father involvement towards the end of the article flies in
the face of what is in the best interests of the child. It resembles
the political support for joint custody by fathers' rights groups such
as the National Fatherhood Initiative and the Children's Rights Council
-- the types of organizations whose policies Silverstein and Auerbach
oppose. Joint custody has been shown by various researchers, including
Mason (7), Kolata (8), Polikoff (9), and Wallerstein and Blakeslee (10)
to be both ineffective and detrimental to the welfare of women and
children. Most fathers do not fight for custody. They acknowledge that
the mothers have been doing the job all along, and should continue.
According to the Florida Bar Journal, "Abusive fathers are far more
likely than nonabusive parents to fight for child custody, not pay
child support, and kidnap children." (11) The only people who benefit
from joint custody are men, primarily through lowering or elimination
of their child support obligation, and through their interference in
childrearing that had always been handled by the mother. These men have
had no problem with the mothers' parenting decisions until after the
relationship dissolves, and he is ordered to pay child support. They
strive for veto-power in parenting through joint custody as a means of
continuing to control the woman after the relationship has ended.
RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD
David Blankenhorn, former Chairman of the Board of the National
Fatherhood Initiative and founder and president of the Institute for
American Values, wrote "Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent
Social Problem." (1995) (12) David Popenoe is best known for his book
"Life Without Father." (1996) (13) A third social scientist who follows
this precept is Dr. Wade Horn, president of the National Fatherhood
Initiative. The writings of these three men are very popular with the
fathers' rights movement. They, and the organizations they have
founded, actively participate in a large, federally-funded initiative
to which Silverstein and Auerbach refer in their article: The
Responsible Fatherhood Project. This Project, which operates under the
auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services, provides
support and services to fathers and fatherhood groups by way of federal
funding funneled through state governor's offices. Mothers and family
forms outside heterosexual married couples do not get similar, positive
support from the government.
Fatherhood propaganda promulgated by these groups and individuals is
the primary reason for the existence of and promotion of social policy
initiatives such as Covenant Marriage, revisions to the tax code that
would reward only those couples who marry, and ending taxes only for
married couples who have three or more children. Welfare reform -- the
closest thing we have to a "Motherhood Project" -- is also based in
part on the research of these social scientists. Rather than exalt
motherhood in the same manner as fatherhood is exalted in The
Responsible Fatherhood Project, welfare reform penalizes divorced
mothers and mothers who have had children out of wedlock should they
need governmental assistance. The recent action alert calling attention
to a pending Responsible Fatherhood Bill would not have come to
fruition if it weren't for the excessive activism of the fathers'
rights movement. These policies discriminate against cohabiting
couples, single mothers, divorced mothers, and gay and lesbian parents.
HORNET'S NEST
The reaction to having the fathers' rights ulterior agenda exposed to
harsh light by "Decon..." and similar writings over the years has
resulted in ad hominum rantings published on newspaper opinion pages
and on the Internet. Wade Horn leads the current pack of men's and
fathers' rights advocates and media pundits who are attacking both the
article and its authors in a very hostile manner. Although Horn's
perspective was not critiqued in "Decon...," he became upset enough to
write the editorial "Lunacy 101: Questioning the Need for Fathers" for
his July 1, 1999 column in "Jewish World Review." He had forwarded this
editorial to newspapers, many of which had printed it. It was also
picked up by conservative talk show hosts. The editorial has circulated
amongst fathers' rights advocates on the Internet, many of whom are
enraged by what they perceive as a hands-down condemnation of marriage
and fatherhood within the American Psychologist article. Rather than
rely on reputable research to lend support to claims that
fatherlessness causes social pathology, men's/fathers advocates and
media pundits prefer to hurl epithets because they know fully well that
there is no reputable research that would support their hypothesis. In fact, reputable research completely discredits
fatherlessness propaganda. There have been heated accusations on men's
and fathers' rights Internet mailing lists that the authors have
"mothballed" fathers, and that they mean that fathers are not only
unnecessary, they are dangerous.
Charles W. Moore wondered in his Calgary Herald opinion piece (14) if
"being a card-carrying lunatic facilitates getting published in
journals of the American Psychological Association." Rather than rely
on valid research material to support the claim that fatherlessness
causes social pathology, he trotted out free-floating fatherlessness
statistics from Equal Parents of Canada, which is not
a valid research group. It is a fathers' rights group; a political
group. Moore ended his diatribe complaining about political advocacy of
anyone opposed to fatherlessness propaganda without acknowledging that
the sources of his own "evidence" was the fathers' rights propaganda
machine. At least Silverstein and Auerbach were up-front about their
own political beliefs when they wrote their article. Kathy Parker, a
columnist for the Orlando Sentinel, complained that the article had
made "numerous breathtaking assertions," including "[f]athers aren't
essential to the well-being of children." She had ignored the author's
biologically-based meaning of "essential" in favor of the Webster's
definition -- "necessary and indispensable" -- in order to claim that
the authors are saying that fathers do not matter. She insists that
[t]he gauntlet has been tossed and a cultural war declared with
publication of that article." (15) Jeff Jacoby, a columnist for the
Boston Globe (16), believes Silverstein and Auerbach have allowed their
political agenda to taint their science neglected to note that Wade
Horn's National Fatherhood Initiative is a political group. Horn has,
to pirate Jacoby's opinion of Silverstein and Auerbach, "allowed his
politics to color his research and is using his research to promote his
politics." The difference between the "fatherhood" crowd and "Decon..."
is that "Decon..." relies on reputable research on single mother homes
to make its points. The fatherhood crowd relies on specious,
long-discredited "fatherlessness" research.
According to Liz Kates, Florida attorney, "After reciting numerous
research findings all about how fathers are NOT essential, [Silverstein
and Auerbach] actually end their article with a LOT of drivel calling
for "father involvement." I'd dearly love to remind them that many
women are unwed mothers or divorced mothers because they neither want,
nor need, nor their child either, involvement from the kinds of men who
now are giving Silverstein and Auerbach such grief. And perhaps (give a
mouse a cookie, give an inch, etc.) they shouldn't have fallen into the
trap _at all_ of touting father involvement outside marriage when there
is even LESS research supporting ITS benefits. They attempted to skirt
controversy by giving lip service to this drivel, and all it did was
make them an obviously scared and weak target. There have been many
many articles and papers that have come right out and said many of the
same things [Silverstein and Auerbach] have, with only one difference:
they didn't call their writeup "deconstructing the..." They simply
discussed the research."
HORN'S MISREPRESENTATIONS
Horn doesn't provide examples of research that adequately counters
"Decon...." Instead, he relies on ad hominum attacks and histrionics
which are rather embarrassing to read.
He misrepresents what Silverstein and Auerbach mean by "neoconservative
perspective," when he complains that the label means "anyone who thinks
fathers matter." He purposefully twists the meaning of "essential" from
the biologically-based parenting differences referred to by the authors
to its Websters' definition when he wrote: "There you go! Dads you
don't make a difference! So don't worry about rushing home to play ball
with your kid in the backyard, you won't be missed. According to these
two psychologists, all that is simply non-essential!" Silverstein and
Auerbach propose that "the essentialist framework represents a dramatic
oversimplification of the complex relations between father presence and
social problems. We characterize this perspective as essentialist
because it assumes that the biologically different reproductive
functions of men and women automatically construct essential
differences in parenting behaviors. The essentialist perspective
defines mothering and fathering as distinct social roles that are not
interchangeable. Marriage is seen as the social institution within
which responsible fathering and positive child adjustment are most
likely to occur. Fathers are understood as having a unique and
essential role to play in child development, especially for boys who
need a male role model to establish a masculine gender identity."
In the same manner that an allegedly inherent, instinctual,
biologically-based motherhood and femaleness have been used in ages
past and not-so-past to discriminate against women, an allegedly
inherent, instinctual, biologically-based fatherhood and maleness are
being used today to discriminate against women, particularly in the
context of marriage, divorce, child custody, domestic violence, and
child abuse. Blankenhorn, in particular, has sanctioned marriage as a
necessary buffer for what he believes is biologically-based male
wanderlust and male sexual jealousy and proprietorship. In a chapter on
domestic violence in "Fatherless America," (17) he supports the notion
of married fatherhood as opposed to all other family forms because he
claims that it reduces "the likelihood of sexual jealousy and paternal
uncertainty, and by directing the male's aggression toward the support
of his child and the mother of his child..." With this statement, he
comes to the unbelievable and erroneous conclusion that married
fatherhood "dramatically restricts the tendency among men towards
violent behavior." His "cure" for domestic violence is marriage!
Horn misrepresented the AP article by stating that the authors relied
solely on their own qualitative study of 200 men. In fact, he became
quite caustic about it. He wrote: "And what is their vast research
experience? Over the past six years they have studied the fathering
experience of 200 -- yes, a whole 200! -- men. Now there's a
representative, national sample for you!" As stated at the beginning of
this article, the authors relied on a wide range of cross-species,
cross-cultural, and social science research, including their own study
of 200 men.
Horn sums up his opinion of what he believes is the authors point of
view in two sharp retorts: "First, fathers are really non-essential to
the healthy development of children. Second, marriage stinks." There is
nothing within that article that denigrates marriage; certainly no
statement that "marriage stinks." The fact is, the lack of a father
does not guarantee the downfall of a family, which is a view anathema
to propagandists like Horn. Empirical literature does not support the
view that fathers make a unique and essential contribution to child
development. The mere presence of a father is not the key factor in
helping children become healthy, happy adults. A seven-year study by
Dallas's Timberlawn Psychiatric Institute found the one factor that was the most important in helping children become healthy, happy adults, was the quality of the relationship between their parents.
THE MYTH OF FATHERLESSNESS
Fathers' and men's rights advocates as well as Horn, Blankenhorn, and
Popenoe have been repeatedly taken to task by attorneys, sociologists,
psychologists, and feminist advocates for insisting that a
vaguely-defined "fatherlessness," is at the root of a wide range of
social problems such as child poverty, urban decay, societal violence,
drug and alcohol addiction, teenaged pregnancy, and poor school
performance. Father-absence research, which appears in the form of
free-floating statistics such as "85% of prisoners, 78% of high school
dropouts, 82% of teenage girls who become pregnant, the majority of
drug and alcohol abusers -- all come from single-mother-headed
households," (18) are cited as proof that single-mother homes have
caused these social problems. "Fatherlessness" is the code-word for
"single mother-headed households," which are both blamed and condemned
for allegedly creating social pathology.
In the past two decades, the limitations of father-absence research has
been documented by many researchers. However, these limitations have
not stopped Horn, Blankenhorn, and Popenoe from using this weak
research to support their opinion that father-absence alone causes
social pathology. For those who understand the politics behind the push
for childrearing within the context of heterosexual, father-headed
marriage alone, the continued use of this specious research is to be
expected because there is no research of substance that supports that
hypothesis.
In his editorial, Horn writes that "... two decades of research
[attest] to the impact of father absence on the well-being of children,
including increased risk for school failure, emotional and behavioral
problems, juvenile crime, and teenage pregnancy." This is not the first
time Horn has erroneously linked father-absence, single-mother homes,
and social pathology. In his Jewish World Review column, "IRS, Welfare
Discourages Low-Income Marriage," (19) he writes: "Fatherlessness is
connected to our most pressing social ills, especially in urban areas,
including poverty, crime, educational failure, and substance abuse."
In "Fatherhood Hype," (20) he wrongly concluded that it is the absence
of the father that leads directly to problems experienced by children:
"The research is very clear that children who grow up without a father
are at greater risk for a host of negative outcomes, including school
failure, drug and alcohol problems, juvenile delinquency, and teen
pregnancy. But saying that kids without dads are at greater risk for
poor outcomes is different from saying that kids without dads are
destined to fail. In fact, many children growing up without dads do
just fine, as your letter attests. But just because you turned out
fine, doesn't deny the reality that on average children without dads
are more likely to develop problems."
Phrases such as "fatherless homes" and "children growing up without
dads" give the misleading impression that the father ceases to exist,
which is definitely not the case. The only true "fatherless" home is
that of a widow with children. "Fatherlessness" in this context refers
to fathers outside the traditional, married, head-of-household position
through divorce or out of wedlock births. Contrary to writings by Horn,
Blankenhorn, and Popenoe, it has been demonstrated that two-thirds of
children from divorced families exhibit no negative effects. (21)
That's not "many children," to use Horn's phrase. That's most children.
In addition, correlation does not equal causation. Father absence
covaries with other relevant family characteristics such as the lack of
an income from a male adult, the absence of a second adult, and the
lack of support from a second extended family system. McLoyd (1998) has
pointed out that "families without fathers are likely to be poor, and
it is the negative effects of poverty, rather than the absence of a
father, that lead to negative developmental outcomes." (22) McLoyd has
also pointed out that "...because single-mother families are
overrepresented among poor families, it is difficult to differentiate
the effects of father absence from the effects of low income." Poverty
and job status appear to be key factors regarding positive child
outcomes in single mother homes, not merely the presence or absence of
a father.
Horn's National Fatherhood Initiative has published a book of
self-proclaimed "Father Facts," which include the expected
without-fathers,-children-are-doomed statements such as, "...[w]ithout
a dad, children are two to three times more likely to fail in school
and five times more likely to live in poverty. They're also more likely
to use drugs or alcohol, or even commit suicide." (23) His claim that
"fatherless homes" lead directly to drug and alcohol addiction is
interesting, because Johnson, Hoffman, and Gerstein have demonstrated
that "[r]isks of youth substance use, dependence, and need for illegal
drug abuse treatment are generally higher among youth who live with a
biological father and a stepmother than among youth who live with a
biological mother and a stepfather." (24) They also found that
"[y]ouths who live with a biological father and no mother or stepfather
are more likely to use substances, to be dependent on substances, and
to need illegal drug abuse treatment than youths who live with a
biological mother and no father or stepfather." (25)
Another documentation of the speciousness of father-absence research
comes from "The Meaning of Fatherhood," by Koray Tanfer and Frank Mott,
(26) which stated: "While it would be a seemingly obvious proposition
to most of us, that fathers' consistent and substantial involvement in
child care would benefit the child, this appears to not have been well
established. The relationship between paternal involvement and
children's well-being seems to be mediated by a number of other
conditions that involve the father, the mother, and the child. In other
words, increased paternal involvement does not automatically result in
improved child outcomes. Nor is it clear whether the fathers'
involvement provides unique nurturance that cannot be as readily
provided by substitute caregivers."
A study by Timothy Biblarz (27) concluded that when income and job
status are taken into account, children raised by single mothers are
nearly as likely to succeed in adulthood, and, interestingly enough,
they are even more likely to succeed than children raised in homes
headed by a stepfather or a single father. Biblarz wrote that "[k]ids
from male-headed households, single dads, do worse socioeconomically
than kids from mother-headed homes and also two-parent families." Most
negative effects were due to the greater likelihood that single mothers
would be unemployed, Biblarz said. "When you compare two-parent
households where fathers were managerial/professional with kids whose
single mothers were managerial/professional, there's not a lot of
difference between the two socioeconomic outcomes as they get into
adulthood."
Data collected by Dr. Valaria King (28), indicates that the critical
factor in successful child development for nonresident fathers is the
level of his child support. "Besides direct help to the child," she
claims, "payment of child support may help indirectly by enhancing the
mother's economic well-being and thus her emotional well-being. It may
also have noneconomic effects such as improving mother-father or
father-child relationships by reducing conflict between the divorced
parents."
In order to support his "Lunacy 101" claim that father absence causes
social pathologies, Horn cited a study by Cornell University professor
Urie Bronfenbrenner, who wrote: "Controlling for factors such as low
income, children growing up in [father absent] households are at a
greater risk for experiencing a variety of behavioral and educational
problems, including extremes of hyperactivity and withdrawal; lack of
attentiveness in the classroom; difficulty in deferring gratification;
impaired academic achievement; school misbehavior; absenteeism;
dropping out; involvement in socially alienated peer groups, and the
so-called 'teenage syndrome' of behaviors that tend to hang together --
smoking, drinking, early and frequent sexual experience, and in the
more extreme cases, drugs, suicide, vandalism, violence, and criminal
acts."
Why did horn include the words "father absent" in brackets? Because the
actual quote read "single parent," a gender-neutral term which supports
the previously mentioned conditions leading to difficulties experienced
in single parent homes such as "the absence of a second adult, and the
lack of support from a second extended family system." Horn covered the
"lack of an income from a male adult" factor in his one source
supporting his position because Bronfenbrenner had controlled for
factors such as low income. Bronfenbrenner is saying that children who
live in single parent homes are at greater risk than children
in intact families primarily due to poverty, low income, and lack of a
sufficient support system, which is the same conclusion reached by
McLoyd, Biblarz, Tanfer and Mott, Hetherington et al, and plenty of
other researchers whose conclusions do not support Horn's view
of fatherhood. Bronfenbrenner's statement is a far cry from saying, as
insinuates Horn, that single mother homes cause the problems experienced by these children. Horn has mislead the reader with this particular out-of-context quote.
THE REAL CONCERN
What has Horn and the men's/fathers rights contingency so up in arms
are statements towards the end of "Decon..." in which the authors opine
that the appeal of the essential father clarifies the backlash against
the gay rights and feminist movements. They write: "In the past two
decades, the employment of women has dramatically increased, whereas
the employment of men has declined significantly (Engle & Breaux,
1998). Many more women than in past historical periods can now choose
to leave unsatisfactory marriages or to have children on their own,
outside of the context of a traditional marriage. Two of three divorces
are now initiated by women (Rice, 1994)."
The real concern for Horn, Blankenhorn, and Popenoe as well as men's
and fathers' rights advocates is not the desire for men to become
better, more responsible parents. They are reacting to the
relinquishment of certain aspects of power and privilege that
heterosexual men have enjoyed in the context of the traditional,
wedded, nuclear family. What we are seeing is a concerted effort to
restore the dominance of the heterosexual nuclear family through
governmental initiatives and fathers' rights-initiated restructuring of
family law as a reaction to a perceived loss of male power and
privilege.
It isn't a sincere effort to become better fathers which concerns Horn
et al, but their own fleeting sense of necessity and indispensability
-- their own "essentialness," according to Webster. In reality, what
they fear may be the knowledge that they, and other members of the
status quo, are toppling from their comfortable perches as Kings of the
Hill.
Footnotes
1. Haraway, D. (1989) "Primate Visions." New York: Routledge;
Fischhoff, B. (1990) "Psychology and Public Policy: Tool or Toolmaker?"
American Psychologist, 45 -- as reported in Silverstein, Louise B. and
Auerbach, Carl F. "Deconstructing the Essential Father." American
Psychologist. June, 1999.
2. Sroufe, L. Alan, Ph.D., "Attachment Theory and the Aftermath of
Divorce," Center for Early Education, Institute of Child Development,
University of Minnesota 226 Child Development, 51 E. River Road
Minneapolis, MN 55455 (1989)
3. Koray Tanfer, Battelle Memorial Institute; Frank Mott, Ohio State
University; "The Meaning of Fatherhood." Prepared for NICHD Workshop
"Improving Data on Male Fertility and Family Formation" at the Urban
Institute, Washington, D.C., January 16-17, 1997
4. Koray Tanfer, Battelle Memorial Institute; Frank Mott, Ohio State
University; "The Meaning of Fatherhood." Prepared for NICHD Workshop
"Improving Data on Male Fertility and Family Formation" at the Urban
Institute, Washington, D.C., January 16-17, 1997
5. The College Street Journal, Mount Holyoke College, citing Francine M. Deutsch, "Husbands At Home," (1993)
6. Weiss, Daniel Evan, The Great Divide: How Females and Males Really Differ (Poseidon Press)
7. Mason, Mary Ann. "Equality Trap" Simon and Shuster, 1988
8. Kolata, Gina. "The Children of Divorce: Joint Custody is Found to Offer Little Benefit, N.Y. Times, Mar. 31, 1988
9. Polikoff, Nancy D. "Joint Custody: Only by Agreement of the Parties," 8 Woman's Advoc. 1,3 (1987)
10. Wallerstein, Judith and Blakeslee, Sandra. "Second Chances -- Men,
Women, and Children A Decade After Divorce. Who Wins, Who Loses, and
Why."
11. White, Ann C., The Florida Bar Journal, Vol LXVIII, No. 9, citing
Hansen, Marsali, and Michele Harway, Battering and FamilyÊTherapy 175
(1993); Grieg, Geoffrey L. and Rebecca Hegar, "Parents Whose Children
Are Abducted by the Other Parent: Implications for Treatment," 19
American Journal of FamilyÊTherapy 215, 221 (1991); Zorza Joan,
"Protection for Battered Women and Children," 27 Clearing House Rev.
1437 (1994).
12. Blankenhorn, David. "Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem." New York: Basic Books. (1995)
13. Popenoe, David. "Life Without Fathers." New york: Pressler Press. (1996)
14. Moore, Charles W. Calgary Herald. "Feminist "Analysis" Dismissive
of Fathers. Charles W. Moore Goes After Quack Psychologists Busy
"Deconstructing" Fatherhood." July 29, 1999.
16. Boston Globe. "Attack on Fatherhood a Political Screed Masquerading as Science." Sept. 26, 1999.
17. Blankenhorn, David. "Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most
Urgent Social Problem." New York: Basic Books. pp. 32-39. (1995)
18. Miller, Stuart A. and Zubaty, Rich. "Reuniting Fathers With Their Families." Washington Times, Dec. 19, 1995, p. A19
19. Horn, Wade. "IRS, Welfare Discourages Low-Income Marriages;" Jewish World Review, June 24, 1999
20. Horn, Wade. "Fatherhood Hype;" Jewish World Review, March 22, 1999
21. Hetherington, E. M., Bridges, M., & Insabella, G. M. (1998).
"What Matters? What Does not? Five Perspectives on the Association
Between Marital Transitions and Children's Adjustment." American
Psychologist, 53, 167-184.
22. McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic Disadvantages and Child Development. American Psychologist, 53, 185-204.
23. Men/Fathers HOTLINE (internet). "Fatherlessness." From "Fathers' Manifesto" website.
24. Johnson, Hoffman, Gerstein (1986). 1995 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse
25. Johnson, Hoffman, Gerstein (1986). 1995 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse
26. Koray Tanfer, Battelle Memorial Institute; Frank Mott, Ohio State
University; "The Meaning of Fatherhood." Prepared for NICHD Workshop
"Improving Data on Male Fertility and Family Formation" at the Urban
Institute, Washington, D.C., January 16-17, 1997
27. Biblarz, Timothy. University of Southern California
28. King, Valaria Dr. "Variation in the Consequences of Nonresident
Father Involvement for Children's Well-Being," Journal of Marriage and
the Family. Assistant professor of sociology and human development and
family studies at Penn State.
