Quotes from the article:
"This should be the final word –– 24 scholarly studies covering 22,300 separate sets of data published in the 20 years between 1987 and 2007 report essentially the same finding: active fathers are absolutely essential in preventing behavioral problems with boys and psychological problems in girls. With such a massive body of evidence the debate ought to be over and the findings established beyond question.
(T)he lead researcher, Dr. Anna Sardaki of Uppsala University’s Department of Women’s and Children’s Health in Sweden, said, “We hope that this review will add to the body of evidence that shows that enlightened father-friendly policies can make a major contribution to society in the long run by producing well-adjusted children and reducing major problems like crime and antisocial behavior.”
(The) analyses showed that “regular positive contact” with the father “reduces criminal behavior among children in low income families and enhances cognitive skills like intelligence, reasoning and language development.” In other words, when a father is around, the kids learn to behave, obey laws and end up learning more. Having both a mother and a father present in the home and active in the children’s upbringing keeps them in line and reaps positive behavioral and psychological benefits.
In 2006, some 1.6 million births (38.5 percent of all births) were to unmarried mothers. In fact, the United States leads the world in the percentage of mother-only families. In 2006, about 28 percent of all children were being raised in single-parent families, and children being raised in a mother-only family where the woman has never been married make up over 43 percent of all single-parent children."
johnfw: Suggesting that Dr. Crouse did not offer any "government" solutions, most of those posting comments after this article referred to what the US government should or should not do about this issue. They did not note that she did not use the term "government" once in the article. They also failed to note that the title of the article does not include "... and my Solutions." The article is a summary or review, along with a few comments of her own, of a scholarly scientific study. The author makes brief suggestions for policy makers, which the commenters may have confused with law makers or legislators, hence "the government." Policy makers are individuals working with think tanks, organizations focused on politics, government, society, culture, religion and so forth. The devise policies in their areas of interest and promote them to the public and to the government in the hopes that legislators will address them with a pertinent law, bill or other means.
Some think the government cannot and should not be involved because the issue of children living in single-parent homes (currently 19 million with unwed mothers, in addition to those living with a divorced parent) is a sociocultural issue, not a government issue. Just as government and business/industry are intertwined (too much so), government and society are interrelated. The three areas form a mutually related, not mutually exclusive, whole. They should support each other in some instances or get out of the way of each other in certain cases, in an ideal scenario. In reality, one overwhelms the others. The government interferes with business and society with some legislation and fails to protect or support business and society with other policies and laws. Some aspects of the business sector (the media, entertainment, and others) undermine or diminish society (the individual, the family, education, communities, social organizations, religious denominations). Society, which supports and is essential to government and business, is never on an equal footing with government and business, much less overwhelms and diminishes them.
As for the govenrment not having any influence over the social problem at issue here, it already does. But one example can be found in government regulations and policies in education. Young people have to be taught the nature, importance, and value of a strong traditional family but that cannot appear in the course offerings because such instruction might have to touch on topics such as virtue, ethics, and moral responsibility and that smacks of religion. We can't have that in our secular schools and world. Comprehensive sex education (translation: you're going to do it anyway, so enjoy--never mind the consequences) is supported but not abstinence or abstinence first because here again these require those same principles that have religious overtones. Gay Straight Alliances (translation: we promote tolerance, inclusion, a safe environment [and gay sex with teenage boys] are legal and fostered in middle and secondary schools (3,000 at last count) but faith clubs, which are also legal, are scoffed at and thwarted. Public schools should not be involved in sex ed or gay sex ed because the students are minors, not adults. Private topics should be dealt with in other venues such as the home, church, or groups outside public schools. Some sex-related issues, particularly the consequences of unwanted pregnancies and disease, should be presented as health or biology subjects. Most, if not all, faculty advisors of the gay/straight alliances (generally only one advisor per club) are openly gay faculty. That's like having a joint Democrat/Republican political club with a liberal Democrat faculty advisor. Republicans would pretty quickly become extinct. What does that tell us about the "straight" component of these "alliances"?
In fact, most social problems cannot be solved without the direct and appropriately guided intervention of government and business. That is what policy makers addressing sociocultural issues hope to accomplish.