Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
51 of 53 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Necessary Antidote to Liberal Male-Bashing, May 27, 1999
By A Customer
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.
|
|
|
20 of 22 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The truth about fathers, February 5, 2005
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.
|
|
|
12 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A thorough analysis. . . .is an excellent resource, April 11, 2002
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).
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|