# Fatherless homes **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 27, 2018, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fatherless-homes/809703 "2018-02-27T22:03:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2018, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fatherless-homes/809703/41 "2018-03-01T18:22:47Z")
This may not be a popular opinion, but I do think it is sociologically plausible that lacking a positive father figure could contribute to delinquency in boys, leading to violent behaviors. All the following is a WAG because I’m not an expert in this area: Boys often deeply identify with the men in their life. Not only are they role models, but they also see father figures as examples of manhood. If from a young age, they see men that love them doing socially desirable things like go to work everyday and being a helpful partner around the home, then they will see this as normal male behavior. If they don’t see men doing such things (and in fact, see the opposite), then they won’t necessarily see these as normal male behaviors. They may either associate this behavior with women (ew!) or associate only antisocial stuff with being manly. Enter guns. Our media tells us that masculinity and guns go hand in hand. Shooting up people is not only fun, but its powerful. A boy struggling with a sense of identity, belonging, and confidence may see guns as a way to make up for what is lacking in him. Boys whose father figures are antisocial or absent may be at risk of glomming on to guns to express their masculinity, because other examples of manhood were not modeled to him early on. If the boy, on top of this, has anger and impulse issues, then gun violence is going to be likely. I think the key to preventing this is making sure that children have positive male role models that take an active role their lives. Doesn’t necessarily need to be their fathers. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2018, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fatherless-homes/809703/42 "2018-03-01T18:50:09Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > It’s actually a non-relevant point anyway. My contention was that the ‘negative’ outcomes associated with fatherlessness are at least partially racial in nature. This holds true regardless of the amount of contact that a father has because the statistics regarding fatherlessness do not actually mention fatherly contact at all. They refer to the father being in the home. Black fathers are much less likely to be in the home than white or Hispanic fathers and so black fatherless children are overrepresented in the statistics. ‘Negative’ outcomes for black children are the result of many, many systemic things and not just fatherlessness (though I am not claiming that fatherlessness has no impact, merely that it cannot be isolated from the numbers we have,) so my contention that the original statistics are misleading holds. This is easily tested. We can compare family types within the same race. That would let us know how much of the poor outcomes is due to being black and how much is due to lack of a father. The [data](http://prospect.org/article/consequences-single-motherhood)suggest that you have it backward, that much of the bad outcomes associated with being black are due to family structure. For instance white children of single parents drop out of high school at a much higher than black children of two parent households. The poverty rate of white single mothers is over twice as high as black married couples. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2018, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fatherless-homes/809703/43 "2018-03-01T18:52:33Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I think the key to preventing this is making sure that children have positive male role models that take an active role their lives. Doesn’t necessarily need to be their fathers. While I don’t necessarily disagree, the chain of thought leading to your conclusion argues just as clearly that “the key” to preventing it is changing societal views on masculinity. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2018, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fatherless-homes/809703/44 "2018-03-01T19:16:42Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > This may not be a popular opinion, but I do think it is sociologically plausible that lacking a positive father figure could contribute to delinquency in boys, leading to violent behaviors. All the following is a WAG because I’m not an expert in this area: > > Boys often deeply identify with the men in their life. Not only are they role models, but they also see father figures as examples of manhood. If from a young age, they see men that love them doing socially desirable things like go to work everyday and being a helpful partner around the home, then they will see this as normal male behavior. If they don’t see men doing such things (and in fact, see the opposite), then they won’t necessarily see these as normal male behaviors. They may either associate this behavior with women (ew!) or associate only antisocial stuff with being manly. > > Enter guns. Our media tells us that masculinity and guns go hand in hand. Shooting up people is not only fun, but its powerful. A boy struggling with a sense of identity, belonging, and confidence may see guns as a way to make up for what is lacking in him. Boys whose father figures are antisocial or absent may be at risk of glomming on to guns to express their masculinity, because other examples of manhood were not modeled to him early on. > > If the boy, on top of this, has anger and impulse issues, then gun violence is going to be likely. > > I think the key to preventing this is making sure that children have positive male role models that take an active role their lives. Doesn’t necessarily need to be their fathers. Which sounds a lot like this: [Toxic masculinity - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_masculinity) Which in turn can lead to the glorification of and aspiration toward this: [Dark triad - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad) I’ve wondered if what you mention about positive role models isn’t a reason for the popularity of Denzel Washington as an actor. The roles he plays tend to be quite similar, usually involving a family man who keeps his cool under pressure and exercises self-restraint. In any movie he’s in, I expect that at some point, events will be worsening, other people around him will start to panic and he’ll go: “Alright, a’aight, a’aight, ere’s what we gonna do”. I don’t know enough about linguistics to put my finger on it but both Washington and Obama have similar voice tone and patterns. Washington had a preacher for father, perhaps Obama learned to model his voice and speech pattern on black clergy too? > [@andros](#): > > While I don’t necessarily disagree, the chain of thought leading to your conclusion argues just as clearly that “the key” to preventing it is changing societal views on masculinity. Which may be particularly difficult in situations where law enforcement is (rightly or wrongly) perceived as the enemy. Without recourse to the law, you end up getting honor culture [Culture of honor (Southern United States) - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_honor_(Southern_United_States)) which really should be called “intimidation culture”. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2018, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fatherless-homes/809703/45 "2018-03-01T19:32:19Z")
> [@andros](#): > > While I don’t necessarily disagree, the chain of thought leading to your conclusion argues just as clearly that “the key” to preventing it is changing societal views on masculinity. Societal views on masculinity and absentee dads are interrelated, so in a way both are key because they are interrelated. Our society doesn’t promote fatherhood the same way it promotes other expressions of masculinity. If you fix the latter, then perhaps more fathers would parent their kids and/or be worthy enough to parent their kids. And also, perhaps more women would choose better partners. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2018, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fatherless-homes/809703/46 "2018-03-01T19:59:18Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > I’ve wondered if what you mention about positive role models isn’t a reason for the popularity of Denzel Washington as an actor. The roles he plays tend to be quite similar, usually involving a family man who keeps his cool under pressure and exercises self-restraint. Hmmm, I only remember a few roles in which he’s played a “family man” but maybe I haven’t watched enough movies. But I agree that he comes across as a strong male in his portrayals in a way that deviates from your typical gun-slinging action hero (even though he has played those roles). All of his characters have Denzel _swagger_. Its in his walk, and yes his speech. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2018, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fatherless-homes/809703/47 "2018-03-02T01:54:47Z")
What about the effect of a negative male role models? ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2018, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fatherless-homes/809703/48 "2018-03-02T21:58:18Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The nifty chart is misleading in a way that seems deliberate. In the study it found that one most categories of interaction black fathers reported having slightly more interaction with their kids for both the co resident and non co resident category of father. It may be that the self reports are not accurate but leaving that aside. The study also found that there was a massive difference in the engagement of co resident and non co resident fathers, the difference was 4 to 5 times the interaction on most categories. > However, because of Simpsons paradox the despite the reported levels of interaction being higher for black fathers in both categories of father the huge difference in co residing rates means that overall black fathers are much less likely to be interacting with their children. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Hmmm, I only remember a few roles in which he’s played a “family man” but maybe I haven’t watched enough movies. > > But I agree that he comes across as a strong male in his portrayals in a way that deviates from your typical gun-slinging action hero (even though he has played those roles). All of his characters have Denzel _swagger_. Its in his walk, and yes his speech. Taking of Pelham 123. John Q. Man on Fire. Remember the Titans. > [@MichaelEmouse;](#): > > The roles he plays tend to be quite similar, usually involving a family man who keeps his cool under pressure and exercises self-restraint. Courage Under Fire, you might say. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2018, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fatherless-homes/809703/49 "2018-03-03T00:52:55Z")
Mass shooters have a high probability of having been fatherless. Given that there are an estimated 24 million children living without their biological father at home, the probability of a fatherless kid becoming a mass shooter is very low. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2018, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fatherless-homes/809703/50 "2018-03-03T14:52:04Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Taking of Pelham 123. John Q. Man on Fire. Remember the Titans. Eh, he wasn’t a “family man” in Man on Fire. He played the archetypical emotionally unavailable, nihilistic killing machine gun-slinging hero. In other words, a great example of toxic masculinity. From Wikipedia: > [@](#): > > In this film, Denzel Washington portrays John Creasy, a **despondent, alcoholic** former Special Activities Division operative/U.S. Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance officer-turned bodyguard, **who goes on a revenge rampage** after his charge, nine-year-old Lupita “Pita” Ramos (Dakota Fanning), is abducted in Mexico City. The supporting cast includes Christopher Walken, Radha Mitchell, Giancarlo Giannini, Marc Anthony, Rachel Ticotin and Mickey Rourke. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2018, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fatherless-homes/809703/51 "2018-03-03T16:18:56Z")
It was the Barzini family. All along. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2018, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fatherless-homes/809703/52 "2018-03-03T17:11:31Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **MichaelEmouse** : > > The OP mentions that a host of negative outcomes are associated with being fatherless. Is the increase in negative outcomes more strongly pronounced among sons than daughters? To what extent are daughters in fatherless homes affected? > > I ask because I suspect that a strong reason for this correlation is genetic. I’m not thinking about race. Rather, there may be a host of psychological vulnerabilities to anxiety, depression, alcoholism, schizophrenia, low impulse control etc which are passed down\*. If they reside in the Y chromosome, then the son may be delinquent not because of his fatherless education but because he got bad genes from his father. The father skipping out is just one irresponsible thing the father did in his chaotic, impulsive and irresponsible life which was partly caused by his genes. That’s probably not carried on the Y chromosome, because very few genes are carried by the Y (mostly, just the ones that code for maleness itself). But that’s irrelevant, because your point would still stand regardless of what chromosome the relevant genes are on (well, as long as it isn’t the X, which a son wouldn’t get from his father). The X and Y tend to get a lot of attention, but there are 22 other chromosome-pairs in humans. ---
**Author:** ![epbrown01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ba0ec/32.png) [@epbrown01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/epbrown01)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2018, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fatherless-homes/809703/53 "2018-03-03T18:02:24Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > And just how would you solve this? Only allow children to be raised in a loving, two parent–whoops, mother and father home? Take children away from single and gay parents? Even if it’s true, how would you solve it? I think the underlying issue, often not mentioned, is not fatherless or single-parent households, but what seems to be an awful lot of unwilling-and-unqualified parent households. No one would randomly assign a 16-year old girl with a dope-dealing boyfriend to raise an adopted a child, for obvious reasons - reasons that don’t seem to matter if the child is biologically hers. Breaking the cycle would mean having family services take the child from the under-18 parents at the hospital if the family can’t provide proof they can provide for the baby, and do welfare checks periodically. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2018, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fatherless-homes/809703/54 "2018-03-03T18:28:37Z")
Single-parent homes are a risk factor, they are not Fate or Destiny, and they’re only one of many risk factors. Two parent households with violence, or drug abuse/alcoholism, mental illness, or a bunch of other possible scenarios are also risk factors for kids to grown up dysfunctional or violent themselves. When discussing these things it’s important to remember that the vast majority of kids raised by single parents do actually turn out OK. Not perfect, but OK, with decent lives. And the girls of single-parent homes are also at risk, it’s just that the girls tend to manifest dysfunction differently than boys do. Boys tend to become outwardly destructive, getting involved in violence, crime, and so forth. Girls tend to become inwardly destructive, getting involved in bad relationships and self-destructive actions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fatherless-homes/809703.md?page=2)