Hi Jim and all Tipsters,
Jim Guinee wrote:
> Hmm...can you say more about "her ethics?" I don't understand that.
I think part of this comes from her practice of "yellow journalism". This was
certainly the case with the previous study concerning child sexual contact. See
below for more related to the present study.
> The article she talks about ("Deconstructing the essential father" published
> in the June issue of AP) seems to be another meta-analysis (that always
> suggest a lack of significant differences) that suggests fathers are NOT
> essential to child development.
This is not what what the study suggests according to the authors. Here is a post
to another psychology list (Division 35's).
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 07:37:18 EDT
HI Everyone-
Writing to ask for help. We are taking an enormous amount of heat from the popular
press for our recent AP article. As far as I can tell, what has happened is that
Wade Horn, a psychologist and the President of the National Fatherhood Initiative,
decided to discredit us and wrote a press release in which he claimed that the
article declared fathers irrelevant and came out against marriage. This press
release was published in many local newspapers nationwide and picked up by every
conservative radio talk show host. This act then changed both our audience, from
academics to the popular press, and also put us on the defensive.
We have decided not to get involved with the popular press, because no matter how
careful one tries to be, our words can be quoted out of context and the message
distorted by people who want to be sensational. Our agenda is to stimulate
scholarly debate.
In an attempt to reach the academic community (our support group), we are including
a summary of our main points below. Although all of these points were made in the
article, the message has not gotten through. As Octavia Butler said in her science
fiction novel, Dawn, "I guess I could consider this fieldwork, but when do I get out
of the field?" Thanks in advance for your support.
A PROGRESSIVE BLUEPRINT FOR ENCOURAGING RESPONSIBLE FATHERING
We share the neoconservative concern that many U. S. fathers are not
involved with their children. We believe that warm, nurturing fathering is
important for children, for mothers, and for fathers.
Our goal is to encourage social policy that supports men in their fathering role
without discriminating against women and same-sex couples.
Our framework for social change has three main recommendations:
1. Redefining masculinity. The father-child bond must be considered as
important as the mother-child bond. This would mean that boys would be taught that
"real men" should be actively involved with their children, whether they are
married, divorced, or never-married.
2. Restructuring the workplace. The climate of the workplace must change to
support men in their role as involved fathers. Currently, men are not encouraged to
use family leave or to work part-time in order to be more involved with their
children.
3. Governmental supports for families. The U. S. remains one of the few
industrialized nations that does not provide extensive governmental supports to help
families balance the stress of work and caring for small children. Without paid
parental leave and subsidized, high quality day care, the responsibility for raising
small children continues to fall primarily on mothers. This contributes to the
marginalization of fathers in families.
We believe that the neoconservative strategy of declaring fathers essential, and
claiming that marriage is the family context in which responsible fathering is most
likely to occur is not only scientifically inaccurate, but also unlikely to be
effective in encouraging responsible fathering.
Louise Silverstein, Ph.D. and Carl Auerbach, Ph.D.
Jim wrote:
> I also find it interesting that the authors sidestep two decades of research
> attesting to the impact of father absence on the well-being of children,
> including increased risk for school failure, emotional and behavioral
> problems, juvenile crime, and teenage pregnancy.
You will not from the above that the authors are *not* attempting to make the
statement that fathers are not important. They are *not* sidestepping two decades
of research. They are rather arguing for responsible fathering which can occur
within a variety of contexts. The problem with Dr. Laura is that she has taken the
information out of context and twisted the meaning of the article for her political
agenda.
Recipe for some of the recent discussions of psychology articles by the media
including Dr. Laura: Take a little bit of data, throw in a batch of emotionally
charged words, selectively cut and paste reference material, half-bake on 350 for
twenty minute.
I hope that we are above such behavior.
Warm regards,
linda
--
linda m. woolf, ph.d.
associate professor - psychology
webster university
main webpage: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/
Holocaust and genocide studies pages:
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/holocaust.html
womens' pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/women.html
gerontology pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/gero.html
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
