Customer Reviews

Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms Are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men

5 star:		(50)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(27)

 

 

Drexler claims point blank that boys do not need fathers. This is a significant claim to make, and, if true, would have enormous consequences for the way we think about family. Therefore, it is imperative to investigate what her research actually says, and more importantly, what it does not and cannot say. Accordingly, there are two things wrong with Drexler's book - the methodology and the argument itself.

First, the methodology. These are the three most glaring errors in her methodology:

1) The control group for her study is made up of one person - herself (page 28). She sets herself up as a "one woman control group" to make comparisons to her group of 90 fatherless families. Anyone with even a cursory understanding of research methodology knows that this is completely unacceptable, and that the control group has to be as similar in size and attributes as possible to the group that is being investigated.

2) She uses a small, unrepresentative sample - 30 lesbian moms, 30 single moms by choice, and 30 single moms by circumstance - (page 27) to make inferences about the population as a whole. Again, a cursory understanding of statistical and research methods shows that unless you have a sufficiently large, random sample, you simply cannot make inferences about the whole population. But Drexler uses her research to claim that ALL boys do not need fathers. For more of her bias and elitist sample, see pages 24 and 25.

3) She does not measure outcomes using a well-tested instrument with which to determine how the children are doing across measures of child development and well-being. Instead, she relies on interviews with young children (primarily from the lesbian moms) to make the broad determination that these boys are "better off" without a father. The self-reporting of children is notoriously unreliable for the purposes of academic research.

Second, the argument itself. Three principle flaws in her argument:

1) Over the past 25 years, an enormous amount of social science research has shown that across measures of economic, educational, health, emotional, psychological, and behavioral well-being, children with involved fathers fare better, on average, than children without involved fathers. These two and a half decades of research cannot be overturned by one flawed, small-scale study that does not even measure outcomes over a long period of time.

2) If Drexler's research was reliable, the implication would be that when men get women pregnant, their children are actually better off if the father leaves. But Drexler also claims that male involvement is important for boys, and that boys will seek out this male involvement on their own. This means that fathers should not take responsibility for their own children, but should make sure that they make themselves available for someone else's children, who were presumably left behind by their father. This is illogical.

3) Based on her biased sample, Drexler's research tells us nothing about the vast majority of fatherless homes. The vast majority of fatherless homes are produced by divorce and out-of-wedlock childbirth, where, by circumstances beyond the single mother's control, she is left to raise her child on her own. They are often living in poverty. But, again, the majority of Drexler's small sample was of well-off women raising children fatherless, by choice, which would produce an entirely different environment for the children than the vast majority of single mother households.

In conclusion, it is borderline fraudulent for Drexler to claim that her research is a reliable tool to infer that boys do not need fathers. Her research method and her argument are deeply flawed and need to be addressed in front of a national audience that has been exposed to her faulty publication. We need to send the message to boys that they need to be involved, responsible, and committed fathers and that girls need to value and uphold the importance of the future fathers of their children for the sake of their children's well being.

I would encourage all to read Father Facts by the National Fatherhood Initiative, Fatherless America by David Blankenhorn, and Fatherneed by Kyle Pruett for the TRUTH!

I'm more stunned by the reviews than by the book. I think the book has interesting information and a valid perspective that isn't heard often.

But to understand that, one needs to actually read the book and also to understand sociological methods of study - studying human experience is not like studying cause and effect in a lab. One also needs to hear and grasp the difference between studies on boys with fathers who have abandoned them - the studies most often cited and associated with stats about the negative effects of not having a father - and this study which is on boys who do not have a father in the picture and never have. In this way, this is new research.

The book doesn't, to me, say that men are not necessary to boys - in fact the author spends a great deal of the book talking about how boys who do not have fathers get access to (and are encouraged by their "maverick moms" to get access to) men and male role models. She finds this to be of benefit for the boys.

She does also say that, based on this research, she sees boys being raised in this specific circumstance (boys without fathers who have abandoned them and who are being raised by a mom or moms) doing very well and developing in a very balanced and healthy manner.

My issue with the book is two-fold. I'd like to see more research and a follow-up with the subjects of her research - I think that would lend itself to a stronger work.

I also just found the writing to be generally unorganized and a bit repetitive. This was very distracting to me as I read.

So interesting information - would like more research and more data - writing itself only so-so.

Drexler seems to forget that anecdotal evidence cannot be used to justify the type of claims she's making in this book, which is riddled with biased sample and hasty generalization fallacies. Drexler makes sweeping statements about the efficacy of single mother parenting without even attempting to clearly define her definition, let alone establish a double blind study or make any other attempt whatsoever to compensate for her bias. Instead, she relies on anecdotal evidence supplied by individuals who were clearly selected based on whether or not their stories support her conclusions.

I`m a progressive and open-minded person,but this agenda-driven tripe had me wretching after the first 10 pages..it also upset me when the author described situations where these "father deprived" sons latched on to what few men they were allowed to have contact with,but were then pulled away by the male-hating mom to "protect" him from the "negative" male contact he was desperately seeking.Not only idiotic,but cruel in my view.No one with any compassion for boys could agree with the authors biased and agenda-driven conclusions.Curiously,the author contradicts herself by suggesting that sons need some male contact(grandfathers,uncles,etc.)just not dad.This book is nothing but "feel good" junk science,and its also part of a larger conspiracy to eliminate fathers and to eliminate any other male influence from our boys lives,both at home and in the public school system.If that sounds like paranoia,I can assure you that you wont have to look far to find evidence of anti-father bias,it is that rampant.

Some of the reviews are too black or white, particularly one where he talks about "grandpa's and uncles needed just not the father". I believe this is not what the author meant. I Think Boys (and girls) need the presence of a Father but sometimes the father is not involved in the situation, or his influence or presence can do more bad than good, without wanting to be simplistic a male who is violent or present a model of behavior we wouldn't want a growing boy to imitate. I think a mother can do her best and raise a great human being.
I don't think the author is advocating for women to start raising kids without men.

Drexler's book misses the point and seems more to me to be a message about extreme feminism then rational logic backed up by truthful research. After raising a boy along with a good Father, I can clearly see the importance of both parents and the mix of views, aspirations, drive, and sensebilities that they each have to offer. This book advocates more simply that we should raise men to be more like women and if we manage to accomplish this we are all clearly in big trouble.
[...]
I guess Drexler liked the sound bite approach to two parents in society:

Deadbeat Dads
Maverick Moms.
[...]

One previous review from the son of a lesbian mom, which has since been mysteriously deleted, read in part:

"Now Dr. Drexler has emailed everyone who participated in her study to urge them to write postive reviews."

This explains the many reviews here gushing about how her so-called "research" is "comforting", "reassuring", "validating", etc. Try adding "self-selected", "biased", and "agenda-driven" to describe Dr. Drexler's cozy interviews with affluent lesbian and single-by-choice mothers.

The alleged "Drexler-solicited" reviews are easy to spot - they almost all mention the author's "research", they have 5 stars, and are typically the only book that person has ever reviewed on Amazon. And there was a mysterious deluge of them between Sep 18 and Sep 21, 2005 - all in response to a mass emailing, perhaps?

Much of the book is designed to assuage any insecurities or guilt among single mothers-by-choice (either by insemination or by ejecting the child's father from the family). But most concerning to me are the reviews from "women's industry" types (child psychologists, social workers, etc.) who will use this book to support their goal of removing even more "unimportant" fathers from the lives of children, based on little more than the mother's whim and desire for a child support check. This, I suspect, was one of Dr. Drexler's goals in writing this book in the first place.

Yes, mothers can raise boys successfully, but without an involved dad let's not pretend that it's easier and that the results are bound to be better, let alone "exceptional"! Our nation's prisons are "exceptionally" full of men who grew up without a father...

This book, with questionable data and in total ignorance of incredibly mounting evidence on the importance of Fathers to children, particularly boys, claims an absolute absurdity. After raising three children as a custodial father, I would never claim something so absurd as that mothers are not important in the raising of girls. Are we to say that one or the other parent is dispensable? Because if Maverick Moms (this could quite easily be a huge euphemism for Moms who strip their children from their fathers) can raise boys better, than clearly Maverick Dads can raise girls better - I might be a good case in point. At least based on Drexler's questionable line of reasoning we can conclude the same in reverse - Maverick Dads are really the best choice for parenting and there is clearly more evidence in this direction then in the direction Drexler wants us to believe.

Beware - this is sensationalistic trash in a clever "cover" designed to sell books and foolishly advocate a really destructive concept with little or no objectivity.

Junk science would be a much more accurate assessment.

Despite Drexler's credentials, Raising Boys without Men is just about the most sloppily researched book ever thrown together.

That's a dangerous thing, because this book has the potential to mislead a lot of people who are honestly trying to do what's right for their families. The premise of Raising Boys without Men is that single moms or lesbian moms can raise their sons to be "exceptional men" even if the boys don't have a father figure in their lives. That's a premise that is very attractive to mothers who are going it on their own, for whatever reason.

But mothers who read this book looking for affirmation may not notice that what Drexler airily calls her "innovative and groundbreaking research" has major flaws. What she did was spend several years visiting, testing, and interviewing a group of single and lesbian mothers and their sons. She states that she also did the same with boys from traditional families-although, significantly, she gives these boys very little mention in the book.

And that was it. No nationwide surveys, no follow-up studies, very few objective measurements of behavior. Drexler does cite some scientific studies here and there, but she freely admits a lot of them are considered "controversial literature"-code for dubious at best.

Yet somehow Drexler managed to get this work approved as her dissertation, then published it in the journal Gender and Psychology, and finally-you guessed it-expanded it into a book. How was it that no one raised concerns about her research methods? Why didn't anyone notice that her research sample was made up of self-selected mothers in higher-income households whose childbearing was much more carefully planned than most? How did it escape everyone's notice that most of these boys are still in their preteens and teens, and there's been no opportunity yet to follow them into adulthood? Why did so many people ignore the fact that Drexler makes sweeping generalizations about the way mothers act and the way fathers act, and emphasizes only those facts that support her thesis while pushing aside those that don't?

I actually read about this book in a magazine and was interested in purchasing it as a gift for my sister, who is raising a son on her own. I like to read reviews prior to purchasing.

I found it EXTREMELY interesting that all of the 5 star reviews are from 1) People that have already raised kids or 2) People that are married and raising kids or 3) People that don't have kids and 3)People that have never made reviews on any other books in amazon.

Now, don't get me wrong, this is my first review, and I have not read the book. But these reviews seem slightly slanted towards pure supporters of the author rather than readers that are actually looking to use this book as a resource in their daily lives. Power to the author and her friends...I just need unbiased, real life applications from readers living this topic to make my purchasing decision.

Most all of the reviewers that answered with a low rating are in a single mom situation and have multiple reviews on other books. This tells me this is honest feedback, rather than a marketing tactic.

I cannot believe I am submitting a review- I've always just been a reader, but I couldn't help but point out the obvious to others looking for assistance in their purchasing decision. It will be interesting to see the number and quality of 5 star ratings that are published after this to help bring the rating back up...