Raising Boys Without Men
by Peggy Drexler with Linden Gross
Published by Rodale Press 2005
Reviewed by Troy L Parrish, MA LCPC
Raising Boys without Men appears on the scene at a time when the definition of family is being challenged, primarily by groups interested in changing the definition of marriage. The focus of the book is the raising of boys without any negative consequences associated with the absence of a father figure in boys lives. The book is a quick read and is engaging in its style and is relatively short at 214 pages.
The author gives a little background about herself and lets the reader know she is the mother of two children living in a long term marriage. She was raised in a Catholic home in which her father died when she was 3 ½ years old. It quickly becomes apparent that she lets the reader know these things about herself because of the conclusions she draws from her study. She concludes from her research that indeed boys can be raised without men, not only without undue harm but she seems to draw the conclusion that boys raised without men may actually be better off. I found myself thinking about a third of the way through the book that if what she writes is true maybe my boys would be better off if I packed up my stuff and moved out. Not that I am a bad father, but the way she presents the stories, the boys in her study were experiencing advantages that boys in a home with a father don’t typically get.
However, there are a few problems with her study and her conclusions. The first problem I noted was the size of the study. The original group she studied included 16 lesbian couples for a total of 32 adults and 16 boys. To draw sweeping conclusions about the effectiveness of raising boys without fathers from the study of 16 homes seems to be weak science. I certainly would not recommend the restructuring of what we know about families and raising children, particularly boys on the basis of 16 homes would be reckless at best. She did go on to include other families in the study, but the number of homes brought in is not revealed, but even if her study group doubled in size, this is still a very small number to draw significant conclusions about such a significant social institution. The second problem is the nature of how she conducted her research. While she used a few structured questionnaires to gather information, the overwhelming body of the study is comprised of her conclusions drawn from her own observation and interviews done with the boys and their mothers. This is hardly hard social science. The lack of hard data or impartial judges or empirical data leaves the reader to accept that her assessment of the adjustment of these boys and families is as good as she concludes. The third issue is the nature in which subjects were recruited. The subjects are all self referred and are comprised largely of well educated women who are financially secure. This does not represent a cross section of our culture or society and as a consequence the conclusions drawn, if accurate, may not apply in a multitude of other settings in which boys are being raised without fathers in the home. Because of these concerns about the study itself, the conclusions drawn in the book should be taken with caution.
The conclusions that she does draw, that these maverick mothers (as she terms them) are doing a fantastic job of raising their boys without men. The problem is that this conclusion is not accurate. While the boys she reports on seem to be doing very well indeed, they are not being raised without men. The title of the book should be Raising Boys Without Fathers In the Home. The author points out repeatedly that the mothers in this study have gone to great lengths to assure that their boys are provided with men to identify with as well as at times to build relationship with. This is the biggest fallacy of the book is that these boys are being raised without men. Hence, any conclusion drawn about the ability to raise boys without men would be inaccurate. It is to the credit of these mothers that they recognized the need these boys would have to have men to emulate and to have some type of relationship with and they work to provide for that need. It is also clear throughout the book that these boys identify with men and some even make changes in their appearance, their conduct and how they interact with their mothers in order to fit in more with their male peers. Not that this is unusual, it just demonstrates the desire these boys demonstrated to bond with other males. These boys are not being raised without men, what is really happening is that these boys are being raised without fathers in the home.
What the mothers in the study do appear to be doing, besides providing male role models for their sons, is simply good parenting. They try to impart values, they set limits, they encourage and they discipline. What they also realize is that they are women and as such they had to be mindful of the fact that they may not be comfortable with some of the interests and activities of their sons. As a result, many of these mothers worked to make sure that they encouraged behaviors in their sons that they believed were inherent to their boys, such as being daring or adventurous. The mothers also found that they need to involve themselves in behavior, such as rough and tumble play even thought they did not enjoy this type of interaction nor did it come naturally to these moms. Again, to their credit, they are willing to make these efforts to provide for their boys.
What is not stated in the book is that these mothers are compensating. They are compensating for what they naturally do not provide to their sons. Another way of looking at this is to state that these mothers are working to provide for their sons elements that come a lot easier for fathers to provide for their sons. This would be no different from fathers learning to be more nurturing and more affirming of their daughters (and sons) in the absence of a mother. A dad trying to make up for the things in his relationship repertoire that are naturally lacking. Dads more naturally provide play, encouragement to embrace life’s challenges and firmer discipline (the mothers in this study often confessed a tendency to be soft on discipline). They are not as adept at nurturing as mothers. It would appear that moms and dads bring different things to the table when it comes to parenting. While there will be many mothers who are confronted with the task of raising a boy or boys without a father, it would seem foolish to purposely create a situation that would then require compensation in order for it to work well.
Does the presence of a father in the home resolve all problems for boys? Of course not, dads still need to do a good job as a parent in order for boys to benefit from their presence. In fact, the push over the last several decades has been to get dads to be more involved and more engaged with their children. This book would have us believe that this is not really necessary. If dads wish to be elsewhere, the boys may actually be better off without dad. Maybe, the emphasis needs to be on dads being what dads should be. There are studies that show that when dad has the right moral compass, he is active and involved with his children, and the children will be the beneficiaries of this involvement. The continued support of the family and the encouragement of men to be family men makes more sense than creating a situation in which compensation is required.
This book really is more about a social agenda. Can we redefine family without doing harm to our children? Only if we recognize what these “new families” have to offer and what they lack. When we recognize what they lack, there is often a tendency to compensate by creating some elements that are associated with the traditional family. If this is the case, then who are we doing this for, this redefining of family. It is certainly not for the sake of our children, it is in the interest of what we as adults want for ourselves. Should we redefine family for our own interests? I am sure that I would tell my kids that they shouldn’t be so selfish.