Most boys have access to other male influences besides just a man living in their house - there are uncles, teachers, neighbors, media, etc. And at least some boys who don't live with their dad still have him in their lives. As the author of the BU article notes, all children need more than just their parents and there is no evidence that who is in that family is important as long as it is supportive. And thousands of boys have been raised by two lesbian parents and been no worse for wear from it - to say nothing of all the boys who have been scarred and wounded by their fathers who would have been much better off without them in their lives. It's just not so cut and dried. The quote below is from the research study I already linked you.
"The reality is that it is how a family acts, not the way it’s made up, that determines whether children succeed or fail. The number of times parents eat dinner with their children is a better guide to how those children will turn out than the number or gender of parents at the dinner table. Good, loving, growth-encouraging parenting is what sons need. A good female parent will help to develop her son’s full potential as long as she values his manliness and encourages his growth, independence, and sense of adventure. Masculine and feminine qualities are in fact human qualities."
Talking about "numerous studies" that you have not produced any information about or links to is pointless (and not really good faith debate).
And you have yet to explain what phrases like "unmaking masculinity" even mean because I don't see any upside to continuing to encouraging males to be bullying, selfish, assholes who believe that controlling women and policing other boys into these behaviors is what they need to do in order to be "a real man." Unless you can identify some other central aspects of traditional masculinity that feminism has a problem with that are not harmful to women, men, and society as a whole, I don't think there is much to say on this.
I almost snorted coffee out of my nose at the other article you linked. It's not exactly a secret that most men do a fraction of the work part in raising their children - leaving the bulk of that to their wives even if they also work full time jobs outside the home. Of course men find playing with their children more fun and fulfilling than mothers doing more hands-on care work and doing all the planning and emotional labor for the family. That's not exactly a revelation... Edit: In addition, most men are skin starved, having been taught that it’s “gay” or otherwise “unmanly” to touch anyone but a sex partner. Getting to have loving, non-sexual relationships where it’s socially acceptable to hug and touch is undoubtedly quite nourishing to the men who are missing that otherwise.
"New research finds that even as women steadily gain ground as family breadwinners and men take on more hands-on parenting chores than their fathers before them, there’s still a burden we women seem to carry all by ourselves: the mental load.
Sometimes called the “third shift”—following your first shift at work and the dinner-and-homework shift once you get home—it is the planning, scheduling, negotiating and problem-solving work that goes into running the business of your family. The mental load is the behind-the-scenes work that makes anyone in your family showing up to anything (dentist appointments, volunteer shifts, play dates, child’s birthday party) on time, properly dressed and if necessary, with gift in hand, possible."
In addition, you've produced no actual evidence of boys growing up without fathers ending in anything, much less "in a train wreck." You believing something is so (probably because you heard it from someone else) and putting it forth as "everyone knows" is just the sort of false cultural narrative that I spend the bulk of my time on Medium researching and debunking with the actual facts.
I'm happy to have discussions with you but let's deal in data and reality here - not emotion-driven narratives of how it must certainly be because it seems to you like that would be so or links to things that don't actually make your point. You seem like a nice enough guy, but you're also awash in stories that you can't really support in any meaningful way.
In addition, overwhelmingly if there is not a father in a boy's life, it's because his dad has abandoned him. So, when do we get to talk about that part?
Any stories which indicate that homes without dads in them are more likely to produce kids with problems fails to take into account that a lot of that is due to economics. As most good-faith studies of this topic have noted, who is in the home matters a lot less than whether or not the children are being adequately supported and nurtured and poverty has a high correlation with crime.
"These details completely transform study outcomes. For example, boys raised by a mother and stepfather (a two-parent home) have the highest negative outcomes, much more than those raised by a single mother. In fact, juvenile delinquency and substance abuse are highest among children raised by parents in hostile marriages (two-parent homes)."
I feel like I've got the outline for a new story here, so thanks for the writing prompt.
