For the better part of the last 40 years, policy experts and
childrearing gurus relegated fathers to the parental minor leagues. Dads
were seen as well-intentioned but inept Homer Simpsons who might be able
to teach junior how to swing a baseball bat, but little else.
But kids see it differently. Mary Kay Shanley's book, When I Think About
My Father, recites these love-words from Amanda, age 6: "At the end of
the day when I go to bed, Daddy tucks me in. We talk together about our
day. He reads me a story to help me sleep. We pray together. That is my
favorite part."
Research confirms with Amanda's endorsement of fatherhood. It turns out
that kids with hands-on dads have greater levels of self-esteem and
social competence, get higher grades in school, and do better on a broad
range of social and psychological indicators. Even in high-crime,
inner-city neighborhoods, over 90% of children who grow up in two-parent
families avoid becoming delinquents.
Sadly, government social welfare programs have a dismal track record in
this area. It's not that they have just ignored the essential role of
fathers. The problem is, they have offered inducements to actually
remove dads from the lives of their kids.
This pattern can be traced back to the 1960s. Under Lyndon Johnson's
Great Society, welfare benefits came with a catch: first, kick dad out
of the house. As a result of this exclusionary "man-in-the-house" rule,
the number of children growing up in fatherless homes rose dramatically.
Before long, people began to notice that poor fathers were "abandoning"
their children. So beginning in 1975, the Congress passed a series of
child support laws that targeted so-called "deadbeat" dads.
The reforms may have been well-intentioned, but they missed the mark on
one key point: many low-income dads couldn't pay their child support
because they were on Skid Row. But that fact didn't stop the federal
Office for Child Support Enforcement, with a budget of $4 billion, from
hounding indigent fathers and
sending
thousands to debtor's jail each year.
But the government was not done with its task of dismembering the
traditional family.
In 1994 the Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act, a $1
billion-a-year feminist windfall that claims to combat domestic
violence. One of VAWA's tools is the issuance of restraining orders.
The dirty little secret that feminists never like to admit is that they
have stealthily broadened the scope of violence. For example, the
National
Victim Assistance Academy came up with this all-encompassing
definition: "Domestic violence is a pattern of coercive behavior
designed to exert power and control over a person in an intimate
relationship through the use of intimidating, threatening, harmful, or
harassing behavior."
As a result of this definitional sleight-of-hand, "domestic violence
becomes whatever the woman says it is," according to columnist
Phyllis
Schlafly.
So when these "battered" mothers seek a restraining order, they also
petition for divorce and custody of the children. Once again, the kids
are left without a father.
The effects of these federal programs are predictable -- and tragic. In
1960, five million American children lived in fatherless homes. By 1980,
that number more than doubled to 11 million. And now, 16 million
children live only with their mothers.
The National Fatherhood Initiative issued this sobering warning:
"Children who live absent their biological fathers are, on average, at
least two to three times more likely to be poor, to use drugs, to
experience educational, health, emotional, and behavioral problems, to
be victims of child abuse, and to engage in criminal behavior."
So consider the 16 million boys and girls who go to bed each night
without getting a bear-hug from daddy, and it's easy to see why a 1999
Gallup poll found that 72% of Americans believe that "the physical
absence of the father from the home is the most significant problem
facing America."
On Father's Day, it's traditional to honor our fathers - those
home-grown heroes who sacrifice their moments of quiet reflection, their
comfort, and even their health to support and protect their families.
This coming Sunday I will remember my own dad, thankful for all the good
times we spent together.
Perhaps this Father's Day should also be a day of reckoning. It's time
to ask, Why does the US taxpayer continue to subsidize government
programs, to the tune of billions of dollars a year, that end up
separating fathers from their families?
