How accurate are Blankenhorn's assertions? It is true that the number of single-parent families has increased sharply during the last 30 years. Divorce in America now creates female-headed homes at about the same rate that fathers' deaths in America did before the advent of modern antibiotic drugs. Nevertheless, a majority of all children in America (60 percent) still live in two-parent homes. Although the rest live in some other type of family arrangement, this does not mean that these children are automatically "fatherless." We know that about one-third of fathers who no longer live in the home are still significantly involved with their children, and perhaps another third wish they could become meaningfully involved. These men feel a deep-seated need to care for their children and are frustrated by the father-unfriendly family laws and economic assistance policies that rob or threaten to rob them of significance in their children's lives. Nonetheless, Blankenhorn flatly states that "today's fatherlessness has almost nothing to do with the actions of government."
Father absence, for whatever reason, has a generally devastating effect on children, according to Blankenhorn. Here I wish I could say that it is not so but, in fact, many studies show that father absence during childhood is one of the strongest predictors of adolescent low self-esteem, poor academic achievement, sex-identity conflict and violent behavior. Yet Blankenhorn overlooks other studies of youth who still do well despite such risks. Emory graduate Jennifer Kogos and I conducted a study, for example, which documents that moral development maturity tends to be significantly higher among adolescents and young adults whose parents had divorced than among their peers whose parents had not divorced. Parental divorce may promote moral reasoning in unique ways, but the relevant point here is that the impact of single-parent homes on children is not inevitably negative.
Blankenhorn also assumes that everything is basically fine in the homes with fathers present because simply having the father "on the premises" sustains the possibility of good-enough fatherhood. Yet my four-decade study of fathers in two-parent families, How Fathers Care for the Next Generation (Harvard University Press), showed that about 24 percent of the men were very highly involved in caring for their children, 40 percent were substantially involved in childcare and 36 percent were not very involved. Combining my findings with those of others, it is clear that some highly involved absent fathers are more wisely involved with their children than the least involved present fathers. Obviously, a simple dichotomy -- present versus absent -- is not adequate if we want to understand and promote the positive ways that men parent the next generation.
This variation raises the question, why do fathers differ so much? By analyzing the 40-year family histories of the 240 men in my study, I found that many of the best predictors of competent fatherhood were the characteristics of the fathers' own fathers. Many of the best fathers were adept at "modeling" themselves after the good fathering they had received from their own fathers. Similarly, "average" fathers tended to produce sons who became average parents. Surprisingly, however, many fathers with significant weaknesses had sons who became wonderful fathers. These sons as adults were remarkably adept at "reworking" the negative aspects of their own experiences in order to give their own children something better. Again, we see that the fathering experienced as boys does not inevitably place a straight jacket on the ability to succeed as adult men.
Fatherhood "is society's most important role for men," Blankenhorn asserts. My findings support his claim. When I analyzed each family across three generations, I learned that men's care for their children's development reaps surprising and long-lasting benefits for their children and for the fathers themselves. When fathers promoted their daughters' physical-athletic competence, for example, their daughters became more successful in school and at work as young adults. When fathers supported their sons' social-emotional and intellectual growth, the sons became more successful in school and college. Perhaps most surprisingly, men who gave priority to child-rearing were more successful at midlife in both their careers and their marriages, compared to men who focused only on their work. Childrearing fathers, by midlife, had also become notably more involved than their peers in care-giving activities beyond the family -- as managers, coaches, labor union officers, or community leaders. It appears that parenting children and then adolescents helps to prepare men, in turn, to care for and mentor younger adults.
Blankenhorn concludes that divorced fathers, single fathers and stepfathers are not, and can never be, good-enough fathers. Yet I have been impressed by the nontraditional fathers who have creatively applied the life stories of good fathers in How Fathers Care to their own parenting. One of the study fathers, for instance, often finished conversations he had with his daughter about issues or decisions she was facing with the request, "Get back to me now. Let me know how it turned out." A divorced father realized from this story that, since he only sees his daughter every other week, it is even more important for him to build in such expectations of continuity. Another study father commented, "When my kids needed me, I made sure I was there. When they didn't need me, I was there anyhow." This, for another divorced father, clarified the importance of his faithful attendance at his son's baseball games, even if all he could do was catch his eyes from the bleachers. These conscientious men may not be traditional fathers, but they are probably good-enough fathers. Fatherhood in America can and does include many kinds of good fathers.
John Snarey is professor of human development in the School of Theology and Department of Psychology. His study, How Fathers Care for the Next Generation, is available at the Emory Bookstore.