No.
Posted on 08/31/2005 9:47:11 AM PDT by SmithL
Peggy Drexler's new book, "Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms Are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men," contends that father-absent homes -- particularly "single mother by choice" and lesbian homes -- are the best environments for boys. While "Raising Boys" may seem like a harmless, feel-good affirmation for "maverick moms," it could have a damaging impact on children by affecting both the choices women make and family law.
Drexler, who is in San Francisco this week for book signings and related events, contends that sons from fatherless families "grow up emotionally stronger," "have a wider range of interests and friendships" and "appear more at ease in situations of conflict" than boys from "traditional" (i.e., father- present) households. Her research, however, is flawed.
For one, the families she studied were those who volunteered to have their lives intimately scrutinized over a multiyear period -- a self- selected sample not representative of the average fatherless family. Also, Drexler's research suffers from confirmatory bias. Drexler is a passionate advocate for single and lesbian mothers. She personally conducted interviews of several dozen single and lesbian mothers and their sons in order to examine their family lives and -- no surprise -- found them to her liking. But while "Raising Boys" praises father-absent households for instilling in boys many intangible, difficult-to-measure qualities, an examination of objective measures of child well-being belies Drexler's rose-colored image of fatherless families.
Numerous studies show that the rates of the four major youth pathologies -- juvenile crime, teen pregnancy, teen drug abuse and school dropouts -- are tightly correlated with fatherlessness. For example, a 1998 study published in the Journal of Marriage and the Family showed that even after controlling for all major socioeconomic factors, including income, teens not living with their fathers were twice as likely to
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
O....M.....G.....
Oh yeah, it's intuitively obvious that girl-fag homes are better for boys. Better for girls, too.
No.
"Are boys better off without fathers?"
Of course they are. Just look at the current generation of "We'll trade you a father for a welfare check" young men out in the world today.
Where can you find them? Just check the jails and prisons. Oh, and the inner city crack houses. And if you want to see one without leaving your home, turn on tv to watch some looting coverage.
This was in a San Francisco paper????
It depends on the fathers. A large proportion of mother-only homes in this country are those where the father or fathers of the children in the home are habitual criminals and drug addicts, constantly rotating in and out of prisons and rehab programs. Boys -- and girls -- are much better off if these guys stay far, far away from the homes.
You can't stop these people by presenting them with facts. The belief that "anything I want to do is not just OK but commendable" is a creed based on a perverse sort of faith, and that faith is not restricted to liberals. Just look at the various threads that spring up here about cohabitation and single parenting. Sadly, there is a ROBUST constituency on Free Republic for every sort of vice which undermines families and endangers children. And when you hit them with statistics, they just say, "That doesn't apply to me." (Don't believe it? Check out the libertarian ravings posted today about rumors of an impending federal crackdown on porn!)
No.
Next question?
Feminazis = hate men
What she really wants to do is raise the next generation of limp noodle metrosexuals who will, like the German men do now, squat to pee.
Abortion is wrong, but I can't help thinking that Drexler should have been a victim. Shame on me.
"Are boys better off without fathers?"
More Liberal deconstructionist propaganda.
Truly sad.
Bull Pucky!
I won't read this, it will just make me mad. Excluding abuse situations, children are best served by having a mommy & daddy at home.
African American crime rates (with 65% from fatherless homes) pretty much blow this garbage away.
The male bashing from the Left continues.
On January 10, 1963, Congressman Herlong of Florida read, into the Congressional Record, a list of the "Current Goals of Communism"....taken from the book, The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen
Goal #40...Discredit the family as an institution.
Gay marriage and adoption...the celebration of single parenthood and promiscuity by celebrities (think Sex and the City)...the effort to push small children out of the home, away from their parents and into day care and government-funded preschools at younger and younger ages, easier and less costly divorces, the push to convince young women that the only path to self-fulfillment is pushing papers around pursuing a career outside the home...and books like this...all are part of the now decades old effort to achieve this goal
You may feel better if you DO read this. Sacks does a nice job of taking apart Drexler's agenda.
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.