Customer Reviews

Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

I am aware that you discourage people from commenting on other reviews, but I think that the following comment is needed nevertheless. A previously posted hostile review said "Just where does David Blankenhorn get off telling mothers that they're not good enough for their kids!!!???? It looks as if David here is stuck in a time warp and the people that believe this piece of trash are too. So...almost half of kids grow up with single moms. I think it's swell that women today have more choices than ever before." This reviewer clearly doesn't grasp the message of the book. First, Blankenhorn isn't saying that mothers aren't good enough for their kids. On the contrary, a careful reading of the book reveals that he believes that good mothers are just as necessary as fathers. He is not denigrating mothers. He is simply saying that neither mother nor father possesses the resources to give a child everything that the child needs. Parenting was meant to be a cooperative effort between a team consisting of husband and wife, each of whom brings unique personal qualities (some of which are gender-related) to the endeavor. It's not sexist to argue that this is the case; on the contrary, it is extremely sexist to argue that women are the only parents who are essential to healthy childhood development. As for the argument that those who agree with the author are in a "time warp," this is nothing but an unintelligent ad hominem attack designed to divert attention from the legitimate substance of the book. Just because one is dismayed by the increasing number of fatherless children, and the undeniably negative effects of that phenomenon on society, it does not make one a Luddite who wishes to return to the past. Responsible people understand that the only way to ensure genuine human progress is to constantly engage in the process of self-evaluation, both as individuals and as members of a larger society. Refusing to acknowledge mistakes which have been made in the recent past is not the path to genuine progress. One last comment: When I read Blankenhorn's description of the negative effects of childlessness, I saw my own story in the book. My Dad, who just died a month ago, divorced my mother when I was a sophomore in high school. He paid the child support payments required by law, but he apparently felt justified in reneging on an earlier promise to finance my college education, mostly because I criticized him for having engaged in the adulterous affair which led to my parents' divorce. As a result of my father's subsequent unwillingness to finance my education (even though, as a successful optometrist, he was more than capable of doing so), I have spent many years struggling financially, in jobs which were only peripherally related to my real interests. My mother loved me, and did the best she could, but the bottom line is that I needed a mom AND a dad, not just for economic reasons, but for a variety of other reasons as well. Instead, I got a mother, and an absentee father who, in terms of adequately preparing me for future life as an adult, might as well have died many years ago. Yeah, that's just "swell." The reviewer refers to the mother's choices. What about the kids' choices? Most of the children affected by the modern disintegration of fatherhood have no choice at all but to suffer the ill effects of that disintegration. Unfortunately, a lot of modern parents today are in a state of arrested development, and they think only of their own needs, not the needs of their children. This is not a sob story. My point is that Blankenhorn's assessment of our current crisis is totally correct. It's time for us, as a society, to admit that the Playboy philosophy, which essentially denies that masculinity has anything to do with parental responsibility, is morally and intellectually bankrupt. We will experience tragic episodes such as the recent massacre at Littleton, CO with increasing frequency unless and until we begin to reverse the decline of the American family.

The breakdown of families, especially in terms of the disappearance of marriage and the collapse of fatherhood, has been carefully studied by a number of authors. One of the most incisive examinations of the problem of fatherless families is Fatherless America.

The book is based on a wealth of statistical information, highlighting the dangerous trend of family disintegration in America. Perhaps most disturbing of the information he uncovers is the fact that "tonight, about 40 per cent of American children will go to sleep in homes in which their fathers do not live". "Fatherlessness," argues Blankenhorn, "is the most harmful demographic trend of this generation". The primary results of this trend are "a decline in children's well-being and a rise in male violence, especially against women."

The problem is not just that of the absence of fathers, but "the absence of our belief in fathers." Recalling the findings of Margaret Mead and others that the supreme test of any civilisation is whether it can socialise men by teaching them to be fathers, Blankenhorn traces the disappearance of the idea of fatherhood in contemporary culture, and the effects this has on our children and our society

While he acknowledges that the so-called traditional family was not without problems, he sees the move to a fatherless society as a far greater dilemma. As fatherhood becomes devalued, decultured and deinstitutionalised, the problems associated with inner city America will only compound themselves. We now know without question that the overwhelming generator of violence among young men is the fatherless family. There are now a multitude of studies available which make it perfectly clear that fatherlessness is the major factor in crime, more than race, poverty or any other social variable.

Paternal absenteeism and the erosion of marriage effect every aspect of life. For example, we now know, contrary to feminist doctrine, that domestic violence is much more likely to occur in homes where the partners are not married. A woman is much more likely to abused by a boyfriend, a de facto or a live in than by a husband. The same is true of child sexual abuse. "What magnifies the risk of sexual abuse in children is not the presence of a married father but his absence." Again, a host of studies have clearly established this point.

With all these studies confirming the importance of marriage and the presence of fathers, one would hope that our political leaders would be reaffirming our national commitment to marriage. The opposite is the case unfortunately. American society is not intent on making sure marriage works, nor is it intent on making divorce less easy to obtain. Instead, it is in the process of deinstitutionalising marriage and fatherhood. It has become a culture of divorce. Instead of trying to reduce divorce, it seeks to make the process more cooperative and amicable. Divorce reform means simply trying to involve fewer lawyers and more mediators. This may be better than conflict and litigation, but it does not deal with the real problem.

When anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski said that "the father is indispensable for the full sociological status of the child as well as of its mother," he was stating a truth that is both simple and profound. Yet we live in a day where simplicity is spurned and profundity is not grasped. As C.S. Lewis once said, "The process of living seems to consist in coming to realise truths so ancient and simple that, if stated, they sound like barren platitudes."

That children need mother and father, and that healthy families are a prerequisite for healthy societies, have been historical givens. Such claims now however are regarded with disbelief. The case for fatherhood and marriage needs to be remade for a sceptical age. Blankenhorn's book is a valuable component in that argument.

We have no shortage of fathers, in the pro-creative, biological/physiological sense of the word. What is missing in our society is the institution of "fatherhood;" the process whereby the patriarch of the family takes his rightful place in the family as leader, provider, protector, and nurturer.

Feminists will hate this book because Blankenhorn uses scientific study, statistics,logic, and, at times, rhetoric and polemics to conclusively state that the absence of true fathers is indeed the "most urgent social problem of our kind."

Whether unwittingly, or by design, feminists have played a big part in destroying this sacred institution; their call for the "rights" of women did not stop there. There has been a full-scale diminution of fatherhood, to the detriment of all involved, and, ultimately, society.

This jeremiad is a must read for anyone, i.e. parents, teachers, ministers, social-workers, and counselors, who are concerned about the state of our youth today. Blankenship proves that without a father, all is chaos in the family.

A truly dynamic and passionate book. I cannot believe that there has not been any noticeable public acclaim for this book,but then again I should not be surprised given the antipathy with which academia, the media, and the various and sundry other members of the literati, view the "traditional family."

We see how women and children suffer. Where's the outrage?

Blankenhorn has written a thorough analysis of fatherlessness in our American culture. Not only is it an excellent resource for anyone in the helping profession, including mental health professionals, but also it will help those who are fatherless.
Blankenhorn confronts not so much the absences of fathers as the absence of our belief in fathers (3). As he describes this, "today's expert story of fatherhood largely assumes that fatherhood is superfluous. More precisely, our elite culture has now fully incorporated into its prevailing family narrative the idea that fatherhood, as a distinctive social role for men, is either unnecessary or undesirable. An essential claim of the script is that there are not-and ought not to be-any key parental tasks that belong essentially and primarily to fathers" (67).

Blankenhorn uses the format of a screenplay with eight characters in the script. The leading characters are the Unnecessary Father, the Old Father, and the New Father. The remaining five minor roles are termed as the fatherhood understudies or almost-fathers. They include the Deadbeat Dad, the Visiting Father, the Sperm Father, the Stepfather and the Nearby Guy. Although the first three are biological fathers, they do not live with their children. The latter two are not biological, so they exemplify the contemporary dispersal of fatherhood: the growing detachment of social from biological paternity" (68). In the last scene Blankenhorn introduces the Good Family Man.
Blankenhorn's Unnecessary Father is not needed inspires condescension, a is easily dismissed and forgotten (84). Old Father is destructive, overbearing man whereas the New Father is a good, nurturing man expressing his emotions and deeply involved as a parent (96). The Deadbeat Dad is a bad guy, "morally culpable and is usually in jail" (124). The Visiting Father is hard to see,"a displaced man trying not to become the ex-father" (148). The Sperm Father performed his father role in the "one-act father, whose fatherhood consisted entirely of the biological act" (171). The Stepfather and the Nearby Guy are substitute fathers often called father figures (185).
Blankenhorn reviews Frank L. Mott's 1992 study, "The Impact of Father's Absence from the Home on Subsequent Cognitive Development of Younger Children" which looked at 1,714 children. Although Mott concluded that "fathers are not a major factor" and "not that important," Blankenhorn states "this is directly and repeatedly contradicted by Mott's own research findings" (71). Blankenhorn identifies the five flaws of Mott's study: 1) Mott examines an extremely limited range of problems only within the younger children (5 to 8 years old), while, research demonstrates a wider range of characterological problems that surface during adolescent (71). 2) Mott concludes that for black children, fatherlessness is actually helpful and at worst not very harmful. Blankenhorn address Mott's ignorance of redundant negative influences. 3) Mott claims that "girls need fathers less than boys" and stresses that girls either suffer no harm from fatherlessness, or that they suffer much less than boys (72). Yet, studies clearly show that "fatherless girls tend toward personally and socially destructive relationships with men, including precocious sexual activity and unmarried motherhood (72). 4) Mott's definition of `father' maybe a roughly but accurately defined as: a nearby guy who can do all or most of what fathers do (73). 5) Mott has depended almost solely on `false criteria of causality' (Travis Hirschi and Hannan Selvin) which equates to "nothing causes anything" (73). So Mott claims "either fatherlessness does not cause problems for children or fatherlessness is comparatively less important than other causes" (73).
Blankenhorn discusses Melinda Blau's 1993 book Families Apart, which succinctly captures all the main components of the better-divorce idea as a solution for fatherlessness. Blau's better-divorce idea is "based on the proposition that `parents could be taught to do divorce better' . . . `co-parenting after divorce' is an `ideal family style' and Blau believes that such an improved style of divorce is `the least we can do for our kids'" (159). On the contrary, as Blankenhorn points out, most real-life divorced parents do not achieve postdivorce relationships based on good humor, warmth, mutual respect, rationality, and a commitment to cooperative co-parenting" (168). Actually, they do not get along very well if at all. Most divorcing couples direct their resentments and hurts at each other.
Blankenhorn's Good Family Man is based on the key words: Good: moral values. Family: purposes larger than self. Man: a norm of masculinity. Blankenhorn's defines him as "the best evidence available that fatherhood is not superfluous. In an increasingly fatherless society, the Good Family Man stands for fatherhood" (202).

A review by Eric Newell
April 9, 2002

The passion with which Mr. Blankenhorn writes is apparent. From the home where there is no father, to where the father is only a visitor to where the father has no regard for the children in the home where the father has no concern for the children he has fathered, author David Blankenhorn tells of fatherlessness as blight upon our country.

Ultimately the author's recommendation is for a father's club where the men keep one another accountable for the time and investment placed in their families. Among the remaining eleven recommendations that he would give for the "re-creation of fatherhood as a vital social role for men" (p.23) is the pledge which fathers would take:

Many people today believe that fathers are unnecessary. I believe the opposite. I pledge to live my life according to the principle that every child deserves a father; that marriage is the pathway to effective fatherhood; that part of being a good man means being a good father; and that America needs more good men." (p. 226)

Real strengths in this writing were first that he helped the reader grasp not only the issue of fatherlessness, but he explained the impact that was made because of it. One example was the effect of wartime. War was the situation, but the effect was long lasting. Families torn apart by war leave gaping holes, preventing young boys, (sons) from having their own role models/mentors. Also the author distinguished the fatherlessness that came out of necessity and that which was volitional. Blankenhorn distinguishes the different types of fathers, i.e. the unnecessary dad, the old father and the new father, the visiting father and the sperm father. Intriguing is his use of the term "shadow dad". As this father is not always around he is cautious to make the time that he is with the children the best that money can by. His actions are those admired by all around. The difficulty, the inconsistency of this type of father is that the terms themselves are inconsistent. "Visiting" and "fathering" are terms that do not simply do not go together. (p.150) The sperm father is the logical conclusion to a fatherless society. He is one in whom there is no expectations.

Addressing this situation of the "fatherless society," the author outlines a twelve-point approach to the placing father's back in their role as the head of the home and the leader of the family. Still at this point the author seems to make these recommendations for those who are willing to change. In the first portion of the writing he spent time enumerating and describing those who were a part of this fatherless society. The changes proposed are not with them but with the new generations or those who are already doing well. This left the question of what could /would be done with those many families who are caught in the fatherless society.

Blankenhorn puts forth a well-documented and well-reasoned argument that the crisis in fatherhood in America is our nation's most urgent social problem. Blankenhorn argues persuasively: "A good society celebrates the ideal of the man who puts his family first" (1995:5). He demonstrates that fatherhood is diminishing both as a positive idea and in practice in America. Forty percent of children will go to bed tonight in homes in which their fathers do not live (1995:1). He argues that this loss of fatherhood is not remediable "...by either maternal investment or public investment" (1995:48).
Blankenhorn carefully examines and critiques seven current concepts of fatherhood in America. The first he calls the "unnecessary father". He argues that fatherhood is increasingly being considered irrelevant in our culture. The "old father" is unwanted because of an authoritarian abuse of power in years gone by. The "new father" is widely applauded today. He is nurturing and caring and virtually interchangeable with a mother. Blankenhorn argues that he is another form of unnecessary father as his masculinity is emaciated. The "deadbeat" dad is universally decried. Blankenhorn puts forth that even if all deadbeat dads paid up, their offspring would still be poorer than children with a father at home. His children are still missing the benefits of daily fatherhood. The "visiting father" despite his best efforts is not able to parent as effectively as an equally motivated father who lives at home with his children and their mother. The "sperm father" is merely the provider of genetic material. He has no responsibility for the un-going provision and parenting of children. The "step-father and nearby guy" despite high motivation cannot take the place of an involved father who lives at home with his biological progeny and their mother.
Blankenhorn argues for a return to the "good family man" who puts his family first. The good family man: "is responsible for his family", "spends time on family activities", is a "good and steady provider", "sets a good example", "admits mistakes", is "flexible", shares the household "workload", is a "provider", "shows love of spouse and children through actions", lives "Biblical and moral values",(1995:205-208).
Blankenhorn makes a persuasive case. I recommend this book for all who seek a clear and well-documented understanding of fatherhood in America today.

David Blankenhorn's careful research in Fatherless America, documents the decline of fatherhood in America between 1960 and 1990. It is mind numbing to admit that negligence and drift, as well as to know that society's shifting mores and values have robbed fatherhood of form and content. Fatherhood is an art, not merely an act of biological function. It is a life-fulfilling process, not characterized as being a calculated objective.
The problem is that the culture of divorce is subversive to the culture of marriage in America. Blankenhorn's solution is to reconstruct the culture of the family as: "an irreplaceable life-support system" (223), and to recognize: "Our essential goal must be the rediscovery in modern society of the fatherhood idea" (223). The implication is for men and women to move beyond biological capability, and commit themselves to the idea that parenting is a lifetime process involving complementary "father" and "mother" roles within the family context.

No-good fathers are one's who Blankenhorn identified as ones considered as unnecessary, patriarchal, deadbeat, visitors, biological necessities, or mother's `friend.'
Good fathers are ones who are able to comprehend their role beyond the traditional triad of provider, protector, and progenitor. Good fathers are active participants in nurturing, caring for, and directly involved with their children from birth!
Negative evidence is clear: "the fastest-growing family-structure trend in the nation has been out-of-wedlock childbearing . . . second has been the formation of stepfamilies . . . third has been divorce" (fn 5, 307). Of the three, divorce is seen as the least harmful, followed by stepfamilies, and out-of-wedlock childbearing. Blankenhorn concluded: "In sum, a perfectly inverse relationship between family-structure trends and child well-being" (fn 5, 307). Child well-being is key! Male sex partner, stepfather, and an out-of-the-way annoyance are not recommended primary roles for fatherhood. In the last third of the twentieth century materialism and narcissism in males and females have relegated the idea of child-well being to Never Never Land!
Blankenhorn's twelve-step program (Chapter 12) began with a pledge to good fatherhood, and included the distribution of consciousness raising information, of good fathers banding together, of the enactment of new legislation, of championing fatherhood affirmative action projects, and then ending with pulpit appeals and educational programs are helpful proposals.
Blankenhorn's final question is really the first question: "Does our society wish to recover the fatherhood idea?" Blankenhorn issued a powerful challenge. How our society reacts to that challenge will be the subject of controversy. The answer will be revealed over the next thirty years as men and women come to terms with the reality of perpetrating the human species in what some regard as a cultured and civilized society.

I believe this book is a compehesive approach to the fatherlessness of this generation of American life. I have seen some of the reviews of the book and some of the criticism. David Blankenhorn, as touched the pulse of the fatherless problem. When he suggest that even having a troubled or bad father at home is better than no father at all. He is not even suggesting that this is the idea but is suggesting that the presence of a father is of extreme importance in the pysche of a growing child and there is no substitute for it. There is all ways room for review, renewal and improvment in fathering, but if a father is not present in a families life there can not be any chance of correction. I have benifited greatly from the content of this book as a father, and suggest that other fathers read this book.

An important work that should be required reading for every TV talking head whose ever said anything even vaguely positive about the breakdown of the allegedly oppresive nuclear family of yesteryear.

David Blankenhorn's book on Fatherless America is a distubing read. An in depth probe of how men in America came to be replaced by the court system, artificial insemination, and "The other guy". The short answer is that we let it happen. The prognosis however, is not good. The steady erosion of parental rights in the touchy feely 80's went double for Dad's and Father's. It has left us with Murphy Brown's plot device baby, Mrs. Doubtfire's only good enough as a woman, a social welfare system that pushes out dad's by law, and fatherhood as allowed by the court system.