Remarks to The World Congress of Families II, Geneva,
Plenary Session IV, November 16, 1999
My topic is motherhood and the moral influence of women. I begin with a personal perspective that
lets me put my gratitude for this World Congress into the framework of my own
experience with the United Nations’ recent involvement in family law.
As the traditional home of UN treaty making about human rights,
Geneva has become the modern headwaters of thought about UN family policy. This week’s grassroots World Congress of
Families will add to those headwaters a crucial new stream–the mainstream.
This group is sending to the UN, and to people everywhere, a family
message of the heart from people representing the international heartland of
Family policymaking in the UN and elsewhere now emphasizes dysfunctional
and alternative family types, while the traditional family withers as an
endangered species. Exceptions have
become the rule, as self-appointed lobbyists have replaced the UN policy agenda
with their personal agenda, like a rebellious child seizing the steering wheel
of the family car while at full freeway speed.
I find it incredibly ironic that now, when democracy is more widespread
than ever before, the United Nations – a very undemocratic forum that is far
from the world’s homes and families – would have allowed this adolescent style
Here’s how I came to this view.
I have long believed that the UN has value. I applaud the original declarations on Human Rights and
Children’s Rights adopted here in Geneva many years ago. But I discovered that today’s UN had lost the
plot about family life when, during my days as a law professor, a Japanese
legal scholar asked my opinion of the UN’s new 1989 Convention on the Rights of
the Child–the “CRC.” He prompted my
study of the CRC that led to my 1996 article in the Harvard International Law
Journal entitled, “Abandoning Children to Their Autonomy.”
In doing that work, I found in a UN Publication this description of the
CRC: “A new concept of separate rights for children with the Government
accepting [the] responsibility of protecting the child from the power of
parents.” Hello? Did anyone notice that
this “new concept” uproots one of the most fundamental natural rights about
family life-- that parents may rear their children as the parents see fit, as long as the parents
The 1989 CRC was written primarily by American lawyers whose trendy
arguments about child autonomy were ultimately rejected by the U.S. legal
mainstream in the 1970's and 80's. The
U.S. still hasn’t adopted the CRC, and probably won’t–even though most other
countries have. This odd outcome
reflects the herd mentality of naive governments who fear being criticized for
not embracing an international treaty that has the word “rights” in its title.
The CRC shows how political activists who have lost their arguments in
such democratic forums as parliaments and courtrooms have learned to use the UN
to exploit the naiveté of local governments.
If the activists can clothe their extremist visions of personal relationships
(note that this term is different from the word “family”) in the vague but
lofty language of international law, they’ve built a trojan horse that lets
them slip like an undetected virus into a country’s legal system and, hence,
The UN’s current approach to motherhood and women reflects this very
problem, because recent UN documents have accepted the extremist claim of
radical feminism that motherhood is an oppressive concept designed to
perpetuate male domination. For
example, many countries still want to protect motherhood as intended by the
original UN Declaration of Human Rights in 1948: “motherhood [is] entitled to
special protection.” But today’s UN
Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) criticizes
these protections as “paternalistic,” promoting a supposedly outdated concept
of motherhood that discourages women “from seeking greater fulfilment in paid
work.” This bias misses the fundamental point that,
as Harvard’s Mary Ann Glendon has said,
“There can be no authentic progress for women without respect for
women’s roles in the family.”
Let’s place this issue into its historical context. We are now living
through the biggest change in attitudes and laws about the family in five
centuries. Writing recently in the
Atlantic Monthly, Frances Fukyama regards today’s family disintegration as a
central part of what he calls “the Great Disruption,” a wave of history as
significant as the shift from the age of agriculture to the industrial
revolution. Essentially, people have become skeptical
about the very idea of “belonging” to a family. After centuries of seeing family bonds as valuable ties that
bind, people now see those ties as sheer bondage.
What is happening to us? Broad
scale forces are eroding our foundations of personal peace, love, and human
attachments. Whatever held
mother-father and child-parent relationships together suddenly feels weaker
now. This strange disruption feels like an ecological disaster, as if a vital
organism in the environment is disappearing.
Patricia Holland has said, “If I
wanted to destroy society, I would launch an all-out blitz on women.” What did she mean? Men and women share all of the common
traits of human nature and often perform the same tasks. But some of their strengths are
gender-specific. And we are losing what women have traditionally contributed to
cultural cohesiveness. Like the mortar
that keeps a brick wall from toppling over, women have held together our most
precious relationships–our marriages and child-parent ties. But now we’re seeing cracks in that mortar,
which reveals some things we have too long taken for granted.
A salesman walked down a street
past a group of boys playing baseball.
No one answered the door at the house where he was to call. Through a
side door, he saw a boy the age of those playing in the street, dutifully
practicing the piano. Baseball gear
leaned against the wall. He called,
“Excuse me, sonny, is your mother home?”
The boy glanced at his baseball gear and said glumly from the keyboard,
“What do you think?”
On a broader scale, studies of
third world development show that of all the variables that affect social,
economic, and political development, perhaps the most significant factor is the
literacy of women. Women have always impacted entire cultures. Their influence begins in each society’s
very core--the home, where women have always taught and modeled what
Tocqueville called “the habits of the heart”--the mores, or civilizing habits,
that create a sense of personal and civic virtue, without which free and open
societies can’t exist.
teaches us powerfully about the moral influence of women. He first uses his phrase, “the milk of human
kindness” when Lady MacBeth is persuading her husband to murder the king and
take his throne. As MacBeth hesitates,
his wife sneers, “Thy nature [is] too full o’ th’ milk of human kindness.
”Then in a haunting passage, Lady MacBeth pleads with the evil forces of the universe to take away her own milk
of human kindness, her life-giving, nurturing female nature: “Come, you spirits/ that tend on mortal
thoughts, unsex me here,/ And fill me from the crown to the toe topful/ of
direst cruelty! Come to my woman’s breasts,/ And take my milk for gall, you
murth’ring ministers / Come, thick
Take my woman’s milk for gall, she
cries; unsex me here. Shakespeare’s
mastery of human nature shows us that Lady MacBeth’s womanly heart made her
incapable of taking a life unless she renounced her nature. A woman naturally gives and nurtures life.
To take life, she had to reject the distinctive essence of her female
being. Later, after she and MacBeth
have killed the King, Lady MacBeth goes insane, then dies--not just from guilt,
but from her symbolic renunciation of nature.
“The milk of human kindness” is a symbol of female nurturing with
many shades of meaning, but especially it means the moral influence of
women. Consider now four ways in which
modern society has begun to devalue female nurturing. Seeing more clearly what we’re losing will help us regain
it. Let us talk first about the
devaluation of motherhood.
For most of Western history, the
very word “motherhood” meant honor, endearment, and sacrifice. Victor Hugo wrote, “She broke the bread into two fragments and gave them to her
children, who ate with eagerness. ‘She
hath kept none for herself,’ grumbled the sergeant. ‘Because she is not hungry,’ said a soldier. ‘No,’ said the sergeant, ‘because she is a
mother.’ Yet this spirit of self-sacrifice has
become a contentious issue in recent years, thus making contentious the very
idea of motherhood.
For example, a recent feminist essay
entitled “the problem of mothering” tells us that, “Explorations of women’s
oppression [look at] the social assignment of mothering to women [because]
women’s oppression is in some way connected to mothering.” Others have attacked the sacrificing mother
whose selflessness has allowed and even encouraged male domination. They argue that stereotyping the motherly
role forces women to accept a sexist “division of labor in every area of
existence, most especially in family relationships.”
These critics do have a point, but
they have swung the pendulum too far.
As Newsweek magazine reported a few years ago, the radical
feminist critique has “sometimes crossed the line into outright contempt for
motherhood.” Still, at its best, feminist criticism is
justified against those who have exploited women’s willingness to accept the
relentless demands of motherhood. And
some women in the past did feel undue social pressure to conform to overly
rigid roles that denied women’s sense of self.
If being “selfless” means a woman
must give up her own inner identity and personal growth, that understanding of
selflessness is wrong. That was a
weakness in some versions of the Victorian model of motherhood, which viewed
women as excessively dependent on
their husbands. But today’s
liberationist model goes too far the other way, stereotyping women as
excessively independent of their
A more sensible view is that
husbands and wives are interdependent
with each other. For example, the
Proclamation on the Family issued recently by the First Presidency and the
Twelve Apostles in our Church states that spouses are “equal partners” who
“help one another” in fulfilling their individual roles. And a good marriage surely enhances each
partner’s opportunity for personal development.
For instance, I once said in
frustration to my wife about one of our children, “The Lord put Adam and Eve on
the earth as full grown people. Why
couldn’t he have done that with this boy of ours?” Marie wisely replied, “God gave us that child to make Christians
out of us.” That is an equal
opportunity blessing for the personal growth of both parents.
The critics who moved mothers from
dependence to independence skipped the fertile middle ground of
interdependence. Those who moved
mothers from selflessness to selfishness skipped the fertile middle ground of
self-chosen service that contributes toward a woman’s personal growth. Because of these excesses, debates about the
value of motherhood have, ironically, caused the general society to discount
not only mothers but women in general.
In an essay called, “Despising Our
Mothers, Despising Ourselves,” one writer found that, despite many victories
for women in the last thirty years, the self-respect of American women is at an
all time low. Why? Because we’ve
experienced not just a revolt against men’s oppression, but a revolt against
women: “Heroic women who dedicated their lives to the welfare and education of
children, as mothers, teachers, nurses, social workers, have been marginalized
and devalued, made to feel stupid and second rate because they [took] seriously
the Judeo-Christian precept that it was better to do for others than for
oneself.” Devaluing motherhood devalues
“everything else women do.” When
society devalues “the primary work of most women throughout history,” we tell
women “that it is really women who” aren’t worth serious consideration.
Then what happens? Society’s bricks begin to collapse. Consider
the unprecedented appearance of child brutality. American schools have recently
witnessed several cases of children shooting other children, something the
world has never seen before. The
forerunner to these events was the world-shocking 1993 British case of James
Bulger, where two ten-year-old boys murdered a two-year-old child.
Some British researchers were so
stunned by the Bulger case that they probed how children learn the difference
between right and wrong. They found
that a child’s ethical sense emerges emotionally long before it emerges
rationally. Thus the orientation of a
child’s conscience begins with its earliest relationship with its mother.
A child is an echo chamber. If he hears the sounds of love from his
mother, he will later speak those same sounds of love to others. But if the mother’s signals are confusing
and hateful, the child will later feel confused and hateful. Whether a mother feels support from her
husband, her family, and her society profoundly influences whether she feels
like a mother of hope–who values herself enough to nurture a child of hope with
the milk of human kindness. And
children of hope create a society of hope.
A second area in which social
devaluation is endangering the species gift of women is that of sexual
behavior. The keystone of the archway
to sexual fidelity was historically the intuitive sexual self-control of
women. Most women’s sexuality reflects
an inner moral compass that can point true north, like a natural magnet. Of course, just as a natural magnet can lose
its power through damage or trauma, women can also lose their natural moral
magnetism. And many men have demonstrated
the capacity for moral self-direction. But throughout history, women have
tended to be society’s primary teachers of sexual mores.
As Leon Kass put it, “A fine woman
understood that giving her body, even her kiss, meant giving her heart, which
was too precious to be bestowed on anyone who would not prove himself worthy,
at the very least, by pledging himself in marriage to be her defender and her
lover forever.” Thus, “It is largely
through the purity of her morals, self-regulated, that woman wields her
influence. Men will always do what is
pleasing to women, but only if women suitably control and channel their own
considerable sexual power.”
This view of female sexuality
abhors sexual abuse of women. It also
celebrates the spiritual and emotional fulfillment of marriage for both women
and men. At the same time, women have too
long endured the unfairness of a cultural “double standard” that tolerated
promiscuity in men while condemning it in women. Sociologist David Popenoe writes that “men the world over are
more sexually driven and ‘promiscuous,’ while women are more concerned with
lasting relationships.” Moreover, he says, “men are universally expected to
initiate sex, while women are expected to set limits on the extent of sexual
intimacy.” As another researcher put
it, “Among all peoples, everywhere in the world, it is understood that the male
is more likely than the female to desire sexual relations with a variety of
A double standard that winks at
this male tendency enough to excuse it is unequal and, hence, unfair. Society might have responded to this
inequality by demanding sexual fidelity of men. But instead, our generation romped into history’s most staggering
sexual revolution, seeking male/female equality by encouraging women to imitate
the habitual promiscuity of men. This
unprecedented combination of sexual liberation and women’s liberation has, with
incredible irony, now liberated men--not only from a sexual conscience, but
also from the sense of family responsibility that women’s higher sexual
standards once demanded of men. And the
biggest losers in this process are, sadly, children and women--the women who
have lost their former power to demand lasting commitments from their
Despite the apparent unfairness of
the double standard, our concept of marriage made serious demands of men. Men are simply not as “biologically attuned
to being committed fathers as women are to being committed mothers.” As Fukuyama put it, “It takes a great deal
of effort to separate a mother from her newborn infant; in contrast, it [takes
great] effort to involve a father with his.” That is why George Gilder defined
“civilization” as the time when men began learning from their women to care
about their children.
Marriage was our culture’s answer to this crucial need, because it
taught men to provide for and protect their families. But our current culture of divorce shows us that Margaret Mead
was right: Because male commitment tends to be a learned behavior, it “is fragile and can disappear” when the
culture no longer expects or teaches it. Thus, said Mead, men won’t stay married in
any society unless they are culturally required to do so.
By expecting men to marry, our
culture sent men a message that controlled the damage of the double standard.
But in the rush toward women’s sexual liberation, we seem no longer to expect
men to marry. Thus we’ve given up not
only the double sexual standard, but also the power of marriage to tame the
male wanderlust. And the losers in this hasty bargaining were not men, but
women--and even more so, children.
This brings us to the third area of
devaluation: we have stopped prizing women’s innate yearning for permanent
marriage bonds. Ours is becoming an
anti-marriage culture that literally throws out our babies with the bathwater
of resentment toward the very idea of marital commitment. The social wreckage produced by today’s
confusion about sex, women, men, and marriage is well known. Rates of divorce and illegitimacy have been
raging out of control for years, with nearly a third of all American children
now born out of wedlock, and over 50% of all new marriages expected to end in
divorce. And many adults have essentially abandoned their children by
“liberating” them from parental commitments.
Two experts describe all this as a “remarkable collapse of marriage,
leading to growing family instability and decreasing parental investment in
children.” After surveying the gale-force damage to
children in this messy scene, Popenoe has concluded that our only hope today is
what he calls “the female predisposition toward permanent pair bonding.” That phrase sounds like a sociologist,
doesn’t it. What is he talking about?
One short answer to that question
is in a terse phrase that most young women once uttered with forceful moral
authority when first propositioned by a young man: “Not until you marry
me.” A more complete answer may be
found in new evidence that women have innate qualities that differ from
men’s. One of these attitudes is
women’s stronger preference for permanent pair bonding. “Women, who can bear only a limited number
of children,” and who must nurture them through lengthy gestation and
dependency, “have a great [biologically ingrained] incentive to invest their
energy in rearing [their] children, while men, who can father innumerable offspring,
do not.” And especially because of the demands of
childrearing during a child’s early years, women traditionally managed to find
ways to keep their children’s father nearby for long term protection and
Because women invest themselves so completely in their offspring,
they also exhibit “greater selectivity
in their choice of mates,”
meaning they want a mate who is committed enough to their children that he will
stay with them for the long term. This
same female instinct, with the social benefits that flow from raising secure
and healthy children, has led women and civilized cultures to find ways of
enticing fathers to share the yoke of family responsibility with mothers,
primarily through the bonds of marriage.
The chain of being that moves from
a mother of hope to a child of hope to a society of hope gives society an
enormous interest in permanent pair bonding.
Thus the woman’s greater desire for marital permanence really is the
mortar holding together the bricks of social stability. Wendell Berry wrote, “Marriage [is] not just
a bond between two people but a bond between those two people and . . . their
children, and their neighbors.” When
this bond weakens, we face “an epidemic
of divorce, neglect, community ruin, and loneliness.” That is why “lovers must not ... live for themselves alone. They must turn from their gaze at one
another back toward the community. . . . The marriage of two lovers joins them
to one another, to forebears, to descendants, to the community, to Heaven and earth. It is the fundamental connection without
which nothing holds, and trust is its necessity.”
The core of this connection is the female predisposition toward
permanent pair bonding. When that core is secure, a wife stands at the center
of moral gravity for her family’s universe, holding her husband close with the
gravitational pull of a natural magnet.
When he moves to the perimeter of the home and community to guard and to
sustain his family, he is like a falcon and she is his falconer. If he strays too far, he will no longer hear
her voice, ever calling him home.
William Butler Yeates has told us what happens then: “Turning and
turning in the widening gyre/ The falcon cannot hear the falconer;/ Things fall
apart; the center cannot hold,/ Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.” Sadly, society’s recent devaluation of the
female center of moral gravity has created just such anarchy.
The image of the falcon and the
falconer suggests an important distinction between the roles of fathers and
mothers in pair bonding and childrearing.
The distinguished psychiatrist David Gutmann has found that in all
successful human societies, fathers have been “creatures of the perimeter” who
provide for and protect their families (I note that “providing for” and “protecting” their families describe the male
role in the LDS Proclamation on the Family) while mothers nurture young
children (“nurturing” describes the mother’s role in the Proclamation). “Strong
mothers build secure homes; fathers and father’s sons maintain secure
neighborhoods.” Ideally, mothers first nurture children’s feelings about right and wrong, then
fathers teach them the law of the
family and community. This places
fathers and other men into disciplinary roles that teach sons with loving
firmness to separate psychologically from their mothers until they internalize
community norms within their own conscience.
By this process, young men transform their aggression and resentment of
authority into a conscience-based sense of duty to protect and provide for
their family and community. Then they
can form their own homes as mature husbands, rather than childishly needing
wives who behave like mothers.
Gutmann is distressed about radical
feminist criticism of male authority in this longstanding pattern. That criticism has undermined the masculine
role, relegating fathers to being “second fiddle mothers.” This demeaning of men has driven them from
marriage into the “masculine default habitats” of “the bar and the adulterous
bed,” where they “feel like men, rather than failed mothers.” When this happens, men tragically turn their
aggression against women and
community, becoming the enemy of their families instead of the protector and
It is beyond the scope of my
remarks to explore more fully the distinctive influence of men, but we must at
least note that sound, permanent pair bonding requires us to value the
complementary contributions and roles of equal partners to the pair bond.
We have now considered the past
generation’s devaluating of motherhood, women’s instinct for sexual fidelity,
and women’s desire for permanent marriage bonds. There is a fourth category of women’s contributions – women have
a gift for nurturing all human
relationships. Recent research shows
that women will often sacrifice an achievement for the sake of a relationship,
but men will more likely sacrifice a relationship for the sake of an
achievement. And relationships are the stuff of social
and interpersonal mortar.
Other studies tell us that the much
clichéd “feminine intuition” that values human relationships is clearly of
genetic origin, showing up in females more than males. And women’s capacity to develop and nurture
personal relationships is needed in all intersections of community
activity. For example, a British
economist recently praised this female strength as an asset in the economy of
the future, with its emphasis on personal networks.
Our Church has long involved women
across the world in decision-making processes and the personal ministering of
local congregations. We sponsor one of
the world’s largest women’s organizations--the “Relief Society,” whose motto
is, “Charity Never Faileth.” This is a
sisterhood for all adult women through which mothers and other women learn to
strengthen not only family bonds, but an endless multitude of other
relationships that are nourished--sometimes kept literally alive by--the milk
of human kindness.. Our experience is
that women’s perspectives can profoundly influence and enrich many fields of
human endeavor without compromising the primary value of home and family.
Consider now, in summary, a true
story from Australian history that illustrates the power of women’s moral
influence as mothers of hope, women of fidelity, wives of commitment, and
nurturers of human ties. In its early
decades as a British colony, Australia was a vast wilderness designated as a
jail for exiled convicts. Until 1850, six of every seven people who went “down
under” from Britain were men. And the
few women who went were often convicts or social outcasts themselves. The men ruthlessly exploited them, sexually
and in other ways. With few exceptions, these women without hope were powerless
to change their conditions.
In about 1840, a reformer named
Caroline Chisholm urged that more women would stabilize the culture. She told the British government the best way
to establish a community of “great and good people” in Australia: “For all the clergy you can dispatch, all
the schoolmasters you can appoint, all the churches you can build, and all the
books you can export, will never do much good without . . . ‘God’s police’--
wives and little children--good and virtuous women.”
Chisholm searched for women who
would raise “the moral standard of the people.” She spent twenty years traveling to England, recruiting young
women and young couples who believed in the common sense principles of family
life. Over time, these women tamed the
men who were taming the wild land; and civil society in Australia gradually
emerged. Also, the colonial governments enacted policies that elevated women’s
status and reinforced family life. As one historian said, “the initial reluctance of the wild colonial
boys to marry was eroded fairly quickly.”
Eventually, thousands of new immigrants who shared the vision of these
“good and virtuous women” established stable families as the basic unit of
Australian society more quickly than had occurred “anywhere else in the Western
This striking story of women’s
moral influence grew from a conscious design to replace “the penal colony’s rough and wild ways” with
“a more moral civilization.” The reformers intentionally capitalized on women’s
innate “civilizing” capacity.
 These women made Australia a promised land
that flowed with a healthy ecosystem of milk and honey. And the milk, literally and figuratively,
was mother’s milk--the milk of human kindness.
That milk nurtures those habits of the heart without which no civil
society can sustain itself.
Most radical feminists, which
includes many of the people on the UN’s current CEDAW committee, would reject
for today’s society the concept that women are civilizing agents. They resist this concept because they
believe that acknowledging any inherent differences between men and women will
lead to negative gender discrimination that will somehow place women in
subservient roles. However, the
evidence shows that, despite many similarities, men and women do differ
innately in some crucial ways. Hence
the title of one popularized book, Men
Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus.
Psychologist Carol Gilligan’s 1982
book shows how women and men perceive the same things in different ways, and
they speak In a Different Voice from one another. Gilligan found that women possess an ethic
of care that is inherently stronger then men’s. If society can value and encourage this gender gift without
allowing it to cause discrimination against women, we just might experience, as
Australian Anne Summers put it, “a
genuine breakthrough in our thinking about the qualities contemporary society
now has the greatest need for.”
The women’s rights movements of
recent years opened many valuable doors to women and pricked the conscience of
many men who had exploited women’s willingness to give their bread to others
and keep none for themselves. But the
gender equity pendulum of the past era has moved our attitudes too far,
devaluing and damaging the culture’s support for motherhood, sexual fidelity,
marriage, and women’s distinctive voices.
It is now time to swing the
pendulum of attitude back to magnetic north, the point in the compass that will
nurture our children and the future society with the milk of human kindness.
Surely society can restore the confidence of today’s women in their own
instincts without coercing them into being non-entities. Surely we can invite men to emulate the
ethic of care they see in their mothers, their wives, and their daughters. We have already learned the hard way that
women, children, and the entire culture are worse off when we seek gender
equality by encouraging women to adopt permissive male lifestyles.
Therefore, as this World Congress
sends a message from the mainstream into Geneva’s headwaters of thought about
family policy across the globe, let us call for a more responsible form of
gender equality that celebrates and preserves the natural moral influence of
women. It is time to equalize the sexes
by asking men once more to follow the moral leadership of women, by honoring
the equal yoke and lifelong commitments of marriage. That kind of progress will make the civilization of the 21st
century not only more equal, but infinitely more civilized.
. Kathryn O. Balmforth, Human Rights
and the Family, Remarks at World Family Policy Forum, Brigham Young University,
January 15, 1999, pp. 8-9.
. Mary Ann Glendon, “The Pope’s New
Feminism,” 1995/96 Crisis magazine.
. Francis Fukuyama, “The Great
Disruption,” The Atlantic Monthly, May, 1999, p. 55.
. Quoted in Jeffrey R. Holland,
“Motherhood,” Ensign, May, 1997.
. Quoted in Kathleen S. And Howard
M. Bahr, “Another Voice, Another Lens: Making a Place for Sacrifice in Family
Theory and Family Process,” Virginia F. Cutler Lecture, Brigham Young
University, Nov. 13, 1997.
. Anne Summers, Damned Whores and God’s Police (Penguin Books Australia
Ltd, 1975, 1994), p. 70.
. “Feminism’s Identity Crisis,” Newsweek, March 31, 1986, p. 58.
. Orania Papazoglou, “Despising Our Mothers, Despising Ourselves,”
Things, January 1992, p. 11.
. Richard Whitfield, “Sensitive Directions for Children’s Moral
Development,” Presentation to World Congress of Families, Prague, Czech
Republic, March 20, 1997.
Leon Kass, “The End of Courtship,” The Public Interest, Winter
1997, p. 39.
. David Popenoe, “The Essential
Father,” from Life Without Father (The Free Press: 1996), p. 12
. Popenoe, “The Case for Marriage
and the Nuclear Family: A Biosocial Perspective,” unpublished manuscript, p. 6.