"The Thunder from Down Under"

September 7, 2001

Boys need Fathers, not Role Models
by Antonia Feitz

One of the most hallowed tenets of political correctness is that the nuclear family of mother, father and children is just one family structure among many equally legitimate family structures. A single mother headed family; or a lesbian/homosexual family; or de-facto families; or an intact nuclear family - it doesn't matter.

But it does. Study after study has demonstrated the overwhelming superiority of the intact nuclear family as the best environment for the rearing of children. The intellectual debate is over.

For some recent evidence, a new Australian study called "Boy Troubles" by Jennifer Buckingham reports that boys growing up in single mother homes are most at risk of suicide, crime and failure at school. While Buckingham acknowledged - even stressed - that the majority of single mothers are good mothers, she said a review of the literature clearly showed the correlation.

Predictably a fellow academic, Professor Don Edgar, dismissed Buckingham's research as a "beat up by somebody pushing a conservative line, yet again blaming the sole mother for all the ills of the world." It was a silly remark which did him no credit: a personal attack is very unconvincing as an intellectual response to a fellow scholar's research.

Next Edgar parroted off the standard politically correct line that, "The whole culture says boys have got to be active, aggressive, adventurous, high risk taking. So many of the problems of delinquency and crime and drug taking stem from that and have nothing to do with single parenthood."

That's as fine an example of wishful thinking as you'd ever find. The truth is that few if any parents encourage their sons to be aggressive or high risk-takers. Most parents channel their boys' natural exuberance into sport and other safe activities.

Edgar even accused conservatives for actually causing the delinquency and other problems of boys. He said, "It's the whole sort of toxic environment and the macho male sort of attitude of exactly these conservative types that leads to the problems they deplore."

How very odd then, that those conservative types inhabiting their toxic environments - better known as married couples - have fewer problems with their sons than women in fatherless families do. Moreover it's ludicrous to accuse conservatives of having a macho attitude. But then, maybe Edgar really thinks that mowing the lawn, putting out the garbage, and ferrying children to sport is macho. Beats me.

Way back in 1965, US sociologist Daniel Moynihan made his now famous prediction of what would happen if illegitimacy and divorce rates continued to rise. Though famous it's well worth a repeat.

Moynihan wrote, "... a community that allows a large number of men to grow up in broken families dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future - that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, disorder - most particularly of the furious, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure - that is not only to be expected; it's very near to inevitable. And it is richly deserved. "

Let's recap. Boys are in trouble; there are high rates of fatherless families; researchers have made a correlation between the two. How should we respond? An intelligent response would be to support and even privilege marriage for the indisputable social benefits it delivers. But in these loopy times privileging marriage would now be regarded as discrimination, even though it has been the norm throughout human history.

So instead of being intelligently addressed, the problems of boys have been re-stated in a politically correct way: boys are not lacking fathers, but male role models.

The notion that any unrelated man - a teacher, a volunteer - can substitute for a boy's father says it all about the extent to which liberals delude themselves to justify their own beliefs and behaviour.

Yes, boys and girls do need good role models. An athlete exhibiting good sportsmanship is a better role model than a junkie. But role models can't substitute for mothers and fathers; they can only support them.

Be that as it may, inquiries are underway - in all the English-speaking countries at least - to consult parents, teachers and other interested people about how to address the lack of men in schools, particularly elementary schools.

Nobody cares to admit that political correctness in the form of hysterical paranoia about child abuse drove many male teachers out of the profession. Under so-called child protection laws teachers have been greatly restricted in their behaviour. Many have said they are afraid to comfort a hurt child for fear of charges of sexual abuse or harassment.

It's no light matter: education authorities invariably take the word of the child over that of the teacher. Some Australian male teachers have been falsely accused of harassment by vengeful girls and some of the poor souls have suicided in despair.

Nobody has pointed out that millions of boys have been successfully taught by women for generations because teaching has traditionally been a female-dominated profession. As well worldwide, nuns have taught millions of boys and girls in the Catholic schools. Despite the female domination of teaching, until the last 20-30 years there were few discipline problems because the overwhelming majority of children were reared in intact homes where traditional morality prevailed.

Whether the liberals like it or not, boys and girls alike need fathers more than they need role models. But for children to have resident fathers adults, especially women, must put the interests of their children before their own self gratification. Unfortunately our age encourages the opposite.

The Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell, recently caused a furor by suggesting that Australia's 'no fault' divorce laws should be reviewed. He reasonably pointed out that people can't walk away from any other legally binding contract without penalty. He suggested that married couples be financially rewarded for staying together.

All hell broke loose. Feminists frothed in fury at any suggestion that women should put their responsibilities and obligations to their children before their desires for self-fulfilment. When invited to comment on the furore, Pell said that his remarks seemed to have touched a raw nerve in the community. That's putting it mildly. They touched the very, very tender nerve of guilt which no amount of booze, drugs or even therapy can assuage.

Our grandparents undoubtedly found marriage as difficult as we do but they stuck together not because they were necessarily more virtuous (though they probably were), but because there was no alternative. Isn't it time we accepted that governments make lousy husbands and fathers? ***

© 2001 Antonia Feitz