|
Pulling a bunch of statistics out of a variety of sources like that is iffy at best. I agree that having two loving, well-adjusted parents is better than having just one. I also agree that the presense of a positive adult male role model is preferable to the absense, and in most cases this role moedel will come in the guise of the father.
Two things might be going on here. First, there are those children whose mothers were never married to their fathers in the first place. This isn't uncommon in poor areas, especially inner cities and poor rural areas. These households begin with two strikes against them.
Second, we have the families in which the parents are divorced. The divorce itself can be stressful on the children, causing a variety of acting out behaviors. In some of these cases, the absense of the father as a factor in the child's life is caused by custodial interference; a hostile mother not letting her children see their father. Is the cause of the problems here the absent father, or the hostility shown by a mother more concerned with getting revenge on her ex than the welfare of her children.
So yes, having a good father involved is better than not. I think we can all agree on that. Having a good, well-adjusted parent involved is what is most important.
This does not mean that the absense of a father, by itself, will cause children to have psychological problems. My children will be raised in a household with no father present (because there won't be a father to be present) and I have no doubt that they have the same opportunity to be healthy and well-adjusted as children in a household headed by a heterosexual couple, and the research bears me out on this.
__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.
~Steven Colbert
|