Posted on 08/24/2005 4:06:38 PM PDT by Lorianne
Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms Are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men _____
Library Journal review: How do sons of lesbians and single mothers develop their moral character without a father in their lives? That is the question that Drexler (psychology, Weill Medical Coll. of Cornell Univ.) tackles here, and her answer is based on extensive research: these sons develop into sensitive, caring, and communicative human beings rarely prone to aggression who are no less “all boy” than sons of traditional families. Maverick mothers, as Drexler illustrates, seek out male role models, “collect” friends to form an extended family around their sons, and often go outside their comfort zone to offer a variety of activities and enriching experiences. Arriving in the midst of the national debate on gay marriage, the book also argues that parenting is not attached to gender—a controversial point to be sure. Drexler, who was raised by a single mom and is part of a heterosexual marriage, further supports that and other findings with inspiring anecdotes and testimonies and scientific background. Yes, lesbians and single mothers can raise boys without a man in the house, and by doing so, these women are breeding a new kind of adult man sensible to family values and open to differences. Recommended for all public libraries, especially those serving a large gay community.
Amazon reviews: _ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1579548814/qid=1124924455/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2224440-5105643?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
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! -- Concerned Father _______
"Non-Fiction" is dead right on! There's no need to read this book except to educate yourself on more of society's attempt to minimize men's value to families and their children. Apparently this author wants to ignore the OVER WHELMING and GLARING statistics that tout the harmful effects on children, both boys and girls, who are raised without a good father. The book he mentions, "The War Against Boys" is an excellent book. Here's another one to read. "Wild at Heart" by John Eldridge. Also try "Bringing up Boys" by James Dobson. These three writers have unquestionable credibility. No woman can know "of" being a man. They can know "about" it in the way a man can know "about" and not know "of" child birth. Boys need their fathers. They crave them. It is a NEED for their proper emotional development just like good nutrition is a need for proper physical develoment. To suggest anything different is preposterous. We hear about bad dads and men all the time, but when a woman or mother does something equal to the wrong a man does it gets put on the back page if it gets mentioned at all. The "diversity" message of this book is dangerous. Homosexuality is a LIFESTYLE not a gender definition. The ideal for raising children is both parents in a loving home. In the absense of that ideal the next best alternative should be considered, but it isn't. In situations of divorce fathers are awarded custody in a ratio of 1 in 10. The one is usually a lesser of two evils situation. Why? Divorced fathers are the most discriminated segment of our society today. There are no laws to protect divorced fathers. It is the ultimate in sexual discrimination or gender bias. Whatever you want to call it. The people who commented on this book act like the system is stacked against single moms. Try again. The assult is on fathers, married or single, and divorced fathers have barely a leg to stand on. The assumption is that mothers are automatically better parents. Why? There are plenty of studys to the contrary. For every ONE book like this you find, I'll show you 20 that contradict this. Many written by women. --Eric Soderholm
Book Description
Raising thriving, emotionally healthy sons does not require a man around the house! That's the conclusion of a groundbreaking research study that will open eyes, stir debate, and reassure nearly 10 million single mothers.
As the number of single-mom and two-mom households has grown, so have concerns about the possible damage to boys caused by the lack of a male role model in the house. Peggy F. Drexler, Ph.D., listened to all the dire warnings; but her training as a research psychologist told her she had to see the evidence. So she embarked on a long-term study comparing boys raised in female-headed families with those whose fathers were present throughout their childhood. What Dr. Drexler discovered is as heartening as it is startling:
o Female-headed households may be even better parents for boys than households with men
o Sons from these families are growing up emotionally stronger, more empathetic, and more well-rounded than boys from "traditional" mother-father families
o While more in touch with their feelings, these boys remain boyish and masculine in all the ways defined by our culture
Raising Boys Without Men offers an inclusive vision of what family can mean and a blueprint for raising happier, healthier sons.
Suggestion: If you have an Amazon account, review the reviewers. Currently the pro-Father reviews of this book have only one star and the reviews favorable to the book's premise have multiple stars.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1579548814/qid=1124924455/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2224440-5105643?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
How does trash like this get published? I can't imagine that such an egregiously flawed study would get by peer review except by inertia of shared ideological bias.
The main argument of this liberal boys-don't-need-fathers book seems to be "It's true because I say so."
It should also be important to remember that girls in fatherless households, and boys and girls in motherless households, face the same kinds of problems that boys in fatherless households do.
I'm ok with stupid people who believe claptrap like this, though. It will be much easier for my son to maintain an intellectual and common-sense advantage over people who believe this BS.
You think so? LMAO! Just wait. He will be surrounded by the kids raised by those who are the subject of this book. He will try "fit in" despite what you tell him. You son is the one who has to survive through the school system, not you. Despite all your good intentions, your teaching, he will do what he needs to do in order to "fit in" with the crowd. There is only one thing you can do to change that. Change the crowd. That means private schools or home schooling.
If her son's anything like this 16-year-old, he'll do just fine. Though much of it is indeed far out of whack, there is still strength in my generation... in the country.
The book, research, and author are all stoopid. My three kids would rather have their dad than anything else in the world. Yeah, kids don't need a dad! Just get 'em a dog instead.
Modern liberalism continues its war against human nature, insisting that somehow, despite all experience and evidence to the contrary, fatherless boys readily make good men. Odd, is it not, that the same people who profess such a belief in natural products and protection of the natural environment should so fiercely reject the idea that there is such a thing as human nature?
Exactly. The natural habitat for children is in a two parent (male/female) home.
Modern liberalism continues its war against human nature.......
Well said! Until we can see signs of touchy-feely in the so-called "insurgents" dungeons, nature will still provide us with our warriors.
And yes, "trained" by strong fathers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.