The computer went insane and highlighted more than I intended.

The part I want to respond to is this: I'm curious why you are saying that there is no data to disprove or invalidate "common sense" when I've just linked you several studies that do exactly that. I get that you don't like what they say, but unless you can disprove their validity in some other way, that's just you being stubborn. The fact is, there are dozens if not hundreds of studies from the past several decades that do show that boys can and often do grow up just fine without a father in the home. I've already quoted to you from many of them and linked you several to read for yourself.

And, the story that you linked me showed no scientific method other than the assumption that correlation = causation. It took into no account all the ways that having a certain type of father in the home could actually be quite detrimental (which I have already noted to you several times). So, no, I don't think much of that study and since you haven't presented any others with better methodology, I'm going to stick with the vast body of research that I'm aware of that says that you are perpetuating a cultural narrative which does not stand up to scrutiny. It's how you (and many people) assume it must be, but actual study of it doesn't indicate that is the case.

And, a lot of what you seem to be saying is that boys need men in the home in order to indoctrinate them into the rules of "The Man Box." That's something that I thought we had agreed was a problem - because there is no one way to be a man, and having to follow someone else's rules about that is actually detrimental to boys. Whereas, a parent who loves their child and allows them to grow up to be who they are (rather than who they are "supposed to be" as a man is undoubtedly going to be a lot more well adjusted. Right? Shouldn't we always let children be who they naturally are rather than being coerced into fitting into some mold of socially constructed gender?