Resources

ANALYSIS

Let's stop playing games

A new briefing paper from the Institute for the Study of Civil Society (CIVITAS) warns of the long term effects of fatherless families. PHILIPPA TAYLOR comments on their findings

It had been frequently said that boys need fathers, but the latest briefing paper from the CIVITAS think tank shows this need is not limited to boys – girls need them just as much.

Using over 100 pieces of research, author Rebecca O’Neill sets out to answer whether society’s experiment with the fatherless family has improved our lives and that of our children. Is the so-called ‘traditional’ family equal to the fatherless family or is the redefined ‘family’ a change for the better?

The experiment is familiar: Marriage is widely regarded as little different from other relationships. Changes in divorce, cohabitation and births outside marriage mean that fewer children now grow up with both their parents. Committed life-long relationships are regarded as attainable only for a few.

The conclusion is predictable: O’Neill lists the devastating and widespread effects of this experiment on adults, children and society. Children living without their biological fathers are more likely to be in poverty, in poor health, homeless, suffering physical, emotional or sexual abuse ... Teenagers without their fathers are more likely to be teen parents, to offend, to smoke, to take drugs, to play truant, to face exclusion, to leave school early ... Young adults who grow up not living with their fathers are more likely to be unemployed, to have low incomes, to experience homelessness, to go to jail, to enter and dissolve cohabiting unions, to have children themselves outside marriage ... and so the lists go on.

This does not all mean that it is impossible for a single parent to raise children well, it means it is more difficult for both parent and child. O’Neill makes no specific recommendations about what should or could be done now. However, at the heart of her message is the simple point that single parenthood has been encouraged by a liberal agenda.

This leaves the obvious danger that this kind of message could be used to stigmatise those who are not married, or to make their life more difficult in order to drag them back ‘into line’. Somehow we need instead to tread the fine line between supporting and helping all ‘families’, and their children, whilst simultaneously encouraging, supporting and pointing people to committed, life-long relationships.

Which leads us to the perhaps inadvertent message that may be heard from O’Neill’s paper: society has abandoned marriage. Yet we need to take heart from the statistics we seem to rarely hear about: many people may cohabit, and many have children outside marriage, BUT the majority do still get married, and still want to get married. Society is still orientated towards marriage, even though it does not get the public support and credit it deserves.

What we need to hear more of now is the other side of the CIVITAS message: the merits of marriage. Having heard about the costs to children from the fatherless family, there is need for more on the positives of marriage and life-long committed relationships.

Again, there is extensive academic research on which to build the case that the family based on a married father and mother is the best environment for raising children and forms the soundest basis for wider society.

Essentially the CIVITAS paper is a repackaging of a message (and indeed research) that has, on the whole, been widely disseminated already in different formats. Nevertheless, the research it details is extensive and authoritative. And just because it has been said before does not mean it is not true or unimportant. The message it tells is certainly disturbingly powerful and if repackaging the material means it reaches a wider audience, let’s keep repackaging and getting this important, if depressing, message out. Experiments with the family are not games - we are not playing with toys but with children, adults and the very fabric of society.

Philippa Taylor is consultant to CARE and author of For Better or For Worse (A look at the benefits of marriage compared to cohabitation), published by Care £4.50 code BTO76 CARE, 53 Romney Street, London SW1P 3RF

© Christian Family Network
is run by CPO, supported by
Care for the Family, Marriage Resource, Positive Parenting,
Care, Women Alive, Christian Herald and many others.


		ANALYSIS Let's stop playing games A new briefing paper from the Institute for the Study of Civil Society (CIVITAS) warns of the long term effects of fatherless families. PHILIPPA TAYLOR comments on their findings It had been frequently said that boys need fathers, but the latest briefing paper from the CIVITAS think tank shows this need is not limited to boys – girls need them just as much. Using over 100 pieces of research, author Rebecca O’Neill sets out to answer whether society’s experiment with the fatherless family has improved our lives and that of our children. Is the so-called ‘traditional’ family equal to the fatherless family or is the redefined ‘family’ a change for the better? The experiment is familiar: Marriage is widely regarded as little different from other relationships. Changes in divorce, cohabitation and births outside marriage mean that fewer children now grow up with both their parents. Committed life-long relationships are regarded as attainable only for a few. The conclusion is predictable: O’Neill lists the devastating and widespread effects of this experiment on adults, children and society. Children living without their biological fathers are more likely to be in poverty, in poor health, homeless, suffering physical, emotional or sexual abuse ... Teenagers without their fathers are more likely to be teen parents, to offend, to smoke, to take drugs, to play truant, to face exclusion, to leave school early ... Young adults who grow up not living with their fathers are more likely to be unemployed, to have low incomes, to experience homelessness, to go to jail, to enter and dissolve cohabiting unions, to have children themselves outside marriage ... and so the lists go on. This does not all mean that it is impossible for a single parent to raise children well, it means it is more difficult for both parent and child. O’Neill makes no specific recommendations about what should or could be done now. However, at the heart of her message is the simple point that single parenthood has been encouraged by a liberal agenda. This leaves the obvious danger that this kind of message could be used to stigmatise those who are not married, or to make their life more difficult in order to drag them back ‘into line’. Somehow we need instead to tread the fine line between supporting and helping all ‘families’, and their children, whilst simultaneously encouraging, supporting and pointing people to committed, life-long relationships. Which leads us to the perhaps inadvertent message that may be heard from O’Neill’s paper: society has abandoned marriage. Yet we need to take heart from the statistics we seem to rarely hear about: many people may cohabit, and many have children outside marriage, BUT the majority do still get married, and still want to get married. Society is still orientated towards marriage, even though it does not get the public support and credit it deserves. What we need to hear more of now is the other side of the CIVITAS message: the merits of marriage. Having heard about the costs to children from the fatherless family, there is need for more on the positives of marriage and life-long committed relationships. Again, there is extensive academic research on which to build the case that the family based on a married father and mother is the best environment for raising children and forms the soundest basis for wider society. Essentially the CIVITAS paper is a repackaging of a message (and indeed research) that has, on the whole, been widely disseminated already in different formats. Nevertheless, the research it details is extensive and authoritative. And just because it has been said before does not mean it is not true or unimportant. The message it tells is certainly disturbingly powerful and if repackaging the material means it reaches a wider audience, let’s keep repackaging and getting this important, if depressing, message out. Experiments with the family are not games - we are not playing with toys but with children, adults and the very fabric of society. Philippa Taylor is consultant to CARE and author of For Better or For Worse (A look at the benefits of marriage compared to cohabitation), published by Care £4.50 code BTO76 CARE, 53 Romney Street, London SW1P 3RF © Christian Family Network is run by CPO, supported by Care for the Family, Marriage Resource, Positive Parenting, Care, Women Alive, Christian Herald and many others.