Too few men leads to youth violence, University of Michigan study finds

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Tsu Dho Nimh Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 4, 2014 10:57 a.m.

    The men don't have to be the parent ... men working in the neighborhood businesses, working in the schools, and being seen doing commonplace activities around children would help the situation.

    Punitive welfare policies that discourage stable relationships, punitive and stupid jail sentencing, and "zero tolerance" policies in the schools are an unholy trio working against the urban poor.

    Note for the homophobes: gay marriages have twice as many the men, so would be a stabilizer.

  • AmPatriot Taylorsville, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 3:13 a.m.

    This article is misleading and misinformation and not true at all. There are many men in a childs life that have no impact or qualification to lead children as orderly law abiding citizens.

    There is only one man that matters to children, its their biological father and no other man has the influence on a child that the biological father has. Its instinctive and vital that biological fathers be more influential in their upbringing and place in society. Mothers, adopted fathers, boyfriend, firemen, policemen, etc do not have the impact and mental stabilizing influence that a biological father has yet the laws give more rights and access to non related men to a child than a father is allowed to have.

    It is these other men that are causing conflict and instability of a child in our society. Fathers have instinctive advantage over all other influences in a childs youth than any other influence and laws must be changed to grant fathers more rights about raising their children.

  • Joan Watson TWIN FALLS, ID
    Dec. 31, 2013 9:05 a.m.

    You asked if one knew the definition of gay. According to the new World dictionary the definition of 'gay'
    joyous and lively merry, happy lighthearted -bright brilliant colors; given to social life and pleasure; wanton; licentious; homosexual

  • TimBehrend Auckland NZ, 00
    Dec. 30, 2013 4:23 p.m.

    @Tators. Your simple sum bears no relationship to the advanced mathematics required to understand something with hundreds of constantly changing, mutually interacting variables. When calculus is needed arithmetic has precisely nothing to offer.

  • tellitstraight Hurricane, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 1:25 p.m.

    What about those fathers who have every intention of caring for and raising their children but who meet the biased family court system when they divorce. My ex-wife has used protective orders, moving my children away without court order, and marrying a new individual days after the divorce was completed (who she claimed would not have any fatherly role for the first few years). Along with her teenage son (who I adopted at 5 and raised for 10 years) and her husband, she has successfully severed my relationship with our 6 year old. I have had no contact with him for over 1 1/2 years. How is this beneficial to my children? And my situation is not at all uncommon, as many other men have experienced similar circumstances. Lots of divorced fathers who want desperately to father their children. A check in the mail to ORS is necessary but not sufficient to providing the optimal upbringing for children. Time for serious changes.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 1:23 p.m.


    hold on were did intervention say anything about you being angry? Again you read things into others words and gain you fail to provide any evidence from this study to support your original comment. Is there a reason you keep trying to change the focus away from the original request?

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 1:11 p.m.

    @DN Subscriber 2
    "1. Liberal policies rewarding single mothers."

    Our apologies for trying to help women who chose life instead of abortion...

    "an urban culture where families and fathers are denigrated."

    Liberals don't promote that and you aren't fooling anybody when you say "urban culture". We know what you're referring to in particular.

    Here's the thing you all can't seem to understand. Just because liberals aren't busy condemning unwed parents (seriously, what do you hope to gain by doing that? making an unwed mother regret choosing life?) that doesn't mean we hate the "traditional family". It just means we see nothing to be gained by just attacking others who don't have that for whatever reason.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 12:55 p.m.

    "Where are all of the typical liberal posters, who constantly put links to studies that support their positions. Yep, they are ignoring evidence that degrades their arguments."

    Degrades our argument? Since when has anyone argued that this correlation didn't exist. Heck, it's frequently noted as an issue on liberal programs like Melissa Harris-Perry's show. Single parent families on average (key phrase: on average) have these stats relative to two parent households. However, averages don't apply to everyone in that demographic though and we certainly wouldn't ever use these averages to take kids away from single parents.

    I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, seeing as you're on the side that opposes two parent households (same-sex couples) and has no issue with single people adopting in Utah, the literal thing being compared here.

    "The implications of what was said in this article are obvious; marriage between a man and a women stabilizes society."

    The implication was that two parent households do better on average. Yet you all don't use these averages for anything other than trying to stop same-sex marriage.

  • ShakenBake Orem, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 12:07 p.m.

    While reading the article, I was reminded of Isaiah 4:1: "And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach."

  • water rocket Magna, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 12:03 p.m.

    The role of father/provider/protector has for years been under attack. Women started it themselves when they started wanting to compete with men, rather than work with them. The ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) activist women pursued in the seventies held the premise that women should be treated like men (as though that was something special). Of course men started to have less "respect" for women because of all this. Now women get to open doors themselves, stand on full buses, raise children that the courts gave them custody for (because women were viewed as having better parenting skills than men), and a whole host of other issues. The traditional family unit, no matter how imperfect it may be, is still the best way to go. Sadly, activist judges will uphold the self-gratification "rights" of those who want to be homosexual, and ignore the societal consequences for such irresponsible behaviors, IMHO.

  • Paddycakes South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 11:47 a.m.

    Not mentioned is that young male students are not treated the same as female students by female teachers, and I would say awareness. Everyone, teachers included, would do well to evaluate themselves and their biases. Girls tend to follow direction better than boys and grades reflect that. Girls get better grades on average than boys and boys are diagnosed 3 to five times more often than girls with ADHD for behavior that teachers really dislike. Good grades affect a teacher's pay. Boys are boys and female teachers should not expect the same behavior characteristics from males as females, and stereotyping male students and comparing them to female students as the standard of behavior. Male students are disciplined more harshly than female students and more likely to be put on drugs for behavior or more likely to be suspended by female teachers and principals. This gender bias affects the behavior of male students and it is perceived by them, overtly or subconsciously and it affects their behavior and self esteem.

  • jeanie orem, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 11:36 a.m.


    Gender essentialist? That is an interesting and dismissive term of the obvious. It takes both genders to create life. The question is if that newly created life needs the influence of both genders as it matures. This study would support the idea that gender does matter. Doug Mainwaring, a gay father, has reached this same conclusion himself. He recognized that his children need a mother, something a gay partner could not offer and has sacrificed his own personal wishes/needs to that end. Gay couples have children because adults have actively decided to exclude a mom or a dad, not because nature took over and dictated this for a child.

    Right now popular studies show gender in parents doesn't matter. If we look at history, any emotionally charged change from the norm has been found to be "not harmful" to children living in this new situation (no-fault divorce as an example). However, as time has played out we are forced to admit these new social conditions were actually very harmful to children. Many adults now are living examples of this.

    It is sad to me that we are willing to travel this road again.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Dec. 30, 2013 10:12 a.m.

    I have noted with some chagrin the preponderance of fathers on TV are idiots, cheaters, or just plain not involved in their children's lives. Of course there are exceptions - but few.

    We are, thereby "teaching" the next generation that fatherhood is not a worthy goal or that nothing is expected of fathers anyway.

    I am not saying that every show should be Father Knows Best - just that there be a range with good fathers shown as such and given at least some credit for what they do.

  • NeilT Clearfield, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 10:01 a.m.

    Ernest T Bass. Since when do we believe anything coming out of liberal university. Your post reveals just how biased you really are. We live in an us vs them society. Liberals blame everything on conservatives and conservatives blame everything on Obama and liberals. All this is fueled in part by talk radio rhetoric. I thought the study validated the conservative viewpoint and traditional marriage. So why are conservatives criticizing the study? I have never seen our country so politically polarized and I am nearing sixty. I am blame much of it on extremist's gaining power. Obama on the left, the tea party on the right. Neither side will move an inch. The result is partisan gridlock in congress which leads to lack of trust in our government and our elected leaders. Decent politicians are vilified and voted out of office for any effort to reach a compromise and move our country forward. Reagan would be appalled by the divisive politics that is leading our country down a road to financial ruin.

  • Rational Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 9:41 a.m.

    The "war on drugs", with its mandatory minimum sentences that put non-violent criminals in jail for long periods of time has ravaged many communities. Things this article/research demonstrates:

    When there are too few males:
    - Youth violence increases
    - Traditional marriage is undermined, because like an alcoholic is overwhelmed and unable to resist alcohol if he/she spends all their time in bars, young women find it unnaturally difficult to resist "hooking up" rather than "waiting for the right man and settling down when the chances of meeting "the right man" are slim and none, and slim is serving 5-10 and none just got out of prison where he learned how to graduate from recreational pot-smoker to career criminal.

    This is the only article that has ever even made me remotely think legalizing pot is a good thing. At the very least, make it punishable by a heavy fine, rather than by incarceration.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 9:30 a.m.

    @ TimBehrend:

    Apparently you did miss something. You were expected to put 2 and 2 together to realize that solid traditional 2-parent families and homes is the solution that will help alleviate much of the problem described in the article. It's all about applying practical and common sense.

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    Dec. 30, 2013 9:18 a.m.

    This article is very good. However, it only treats the symptoms. It doesn't treat the causes because they are too controversial. Prisons are filled with those who should be there. Prisons have become the fathers for those who have none. Gangs attempt to fill that void. Now, we have a liberal element who want to label prisoners as the "true victims" of an unjust economic society. In the recent gubernatorial election in Virginia, McAuliffe "outscored" Cuccanelli 74-16 among unmarried women. All religions are breaking down and giving in to pressures on the traditional family. Billy Graham is finishing up his earthly mission. Actually, society is in a great deal of trouble.

  • oragami St. George, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 8:41 a.m.


    I see you have very little understanding of gender, beyond what you have learned from gender essentialists. Further, gay couples already have children, often out of wedlock. Do you believe that those children are better off outside the confines of a loving and committed marriage between those couples?

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Dec. 30, 2013 7:26 a.m.

    "This is detrimental to society. It's horrible to teach children to devalue their gender - or the opposite gender - or both genders at the same time. It's wrong. Morally wrong. And no matter what the "adults" say, our actions will speak louder than our words."

    I agree with your position. Through media and laws our culture has gradually, over the last 50 years, drifted into a cultural paradigm which has caused and is causing an immense amount of poverty and ruined lives. That is what we learn from this study.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Dec. 30, 2013 6:56 a.m.

    “There are citizens fighting for the city, and a beautiful population of children whose future is bright," Caldwell said. "I would not call it a bleak city.”

    I tutored junior high school children in an inner city community center. A 13 year old black girl told me one afternoon, "Don't be offended, but I don't see what is the point of men." At another time I was telling stories to teenage inmates in a juvenile detention center. I told a story about a young man who was adopted into an enemy tribe during a war. In his first battle he ended up being paired off against his father. The father told the son, "Seal your adoption with my blood."

    One of the inmates raised his hand and asked, "How did he know it was his father?" The reason this young man was in juvenile detention was because he grew up in a neighborhood where you would not automatically know your father.

    Stories like these are why I have concluded that the forces in society that support traditional marriage and that men should be responsible for the children they father are the liberal, progressive segments of society.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Dec. 30, 2013 6:53 a.m.

    An interesting study that confirms the obvious, but the conclusions drawn seem a bit of a mess.

    The evidence is overwhelming that too few adult/mature males in a community is a net negative, but what about the opposite? Is having an abundance of males a good thing – as Kruger concludes by citing the civilizing role women can play when too many men have to compete for women – or is it a bad thing, as Hudson concludes by citing what is happening in China. All other things being equal, both of these conclusions cannot be true simultaneously.

    Likely the former is true and China is an anomaly (due to other cultural factors), but you wouldn’t know it from this jumbled piece.

    And what does this article have to do with gay marriage? Some of the comments here contain more non-sequiturs than a Glenn Beck chalkboard presentation.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Dec. 30, 2013 6:31 a.m.

    r.e. Oragami. The point is that it is hard to predict how changes in social (family) structure will affect our society. Gay marriage is a major change and we can't know just how it will affect our society over the long term (e.g. the disasterous consequences of no-fault divorce, abortion, increased sexual promiscuity, etc.). One thing we can anticipate with legitimization of gay marriage is other family structures will become more common (multiple partner families such and three or more men or women or two or more adults of different sexes). This will lead to more venereal disease, unpredictable parenting patterns resulting poorly trained children and more poverty, crime and social chaos. Is this what you want?

  • TimBehrend Auckland NZ, 00
    Dec. 30, 2013 6:22 a.m.

    Did i miss something? The article wasn't about strong marriages, stable families, and positive male role models. It was reported on a significant correlation between gender imbalance and violence. The explanations were based in economics, not abstract values that are more present on the lip than in everyday behaviour.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Dec. 30, 2013 3:40 a.m.

    Yes, it is terrible, but the republican idea of saving money by cutting funding for Head Start, sex education, and PBS makes it worse.

    Imagine being so totally out of it that you believe that preaching abstinence to inner city and suburban kids works better than giving out free condoms!!!

    We need to get in and educate the people how to form families that work, which means (horrors!) birth control and allowing abortions, while educating poor women to head them off via birth control and wise decision making.

    And then, some of these unwanted kids are adopted by Gay couples, unless we decide they are better off in orphanages, which is insanity!

    By the way, current studies say that having two parents is a good predictor of childrens' being successful, and the gender of parents is not a factor -- unless you want to listen to the discredited studies by Regnerus, et al

  • MercyNLovelie USA, CA
    Dec. 30, 2013 2:20 a.m.

    No, oragami.

    You asked, "How would two men being able to get married contribute in any way to the problems cited in this research?"

    The answer is: because two men are raising kids without a female figure in the home; and two women are raising kids without a male figure in the home. Gay marriage supports non-traditional family structures.

    Since a male figure is missing in the home, the potential consequences still apply. Male / Female = different.

    Gay marriage supporters tell children that they "don't need" a mother or father. "Any two adults will do." Children are raised to believe that one gender can replace or substitute the other, while at the same time learning that neither gender matters.

    This is detrimental to society. It's horrible to teach children to devalue their gender - or the opposite gender - or both genders at the same time. It's wrong. Morally wrong. And no matter what the "adults" say, our actions will speak louder than our words.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 12:24 a.m.

    Bill O'Reilly has been talking about this particular issue for years and advocating the need for more positive male (father) influence in society in general and especially in the lives of teenage males. It makes perfect sense, as this study has concluded. But liberals have been condemning him for this very stance.
    Hopefully, they and society in general will now start paying more attention and taking steps to correct this wide-spread problem.

  • johnthomasjones St. George, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 12:08 a.m.

    bandersen do you really believe that legalizing gay marriage deprives communities of men who would have otherwise married women, had children, and lived up to "God's standard" as you define it? Seriously? Do you even know what gay means?

  • oragami St. George, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 11:51 p.m.

    I am a proud supporter of gay marriage. I find it laughable that anyone posting here is trying to link the results of this study to gay marriage. How would two men being able to get married contribute in any way to the problems cited in this research? It seems to me that it is more likely that gay marriage will promote the kind of commitment and self-control young boys need to see more of in their neighborhoods (just like straight marriage does).

    What's next? Gay people getting married causes the death of area bald eagles?

  • Interloper Portland, OR
    Dec. 29, 2013 10:11 p.m.

    It seems reasonable to me that an abnormally low population of males would have some negative effects on communities and therefore cities and states. But, we should remember that this a theory. And, that it should not be considered in isolation. There are other known factors, including income inequality, that result in poverty, disintegration of families and, sometimes, higher levels of violence.

  • Another Perspective Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 10:06 p.m.

    Too few men lead to violence? That's exactly the opposite of what I would have expected.

  • Ricardo Carvalho Provo, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 9:51 p.m.

    Great comment Howard. I have often wondered whether there exists good research studying the lack of men in the K-12 teaching profession. While I have often raised the flag on behalf of women, I suspect this is one of the cases in which we need to do something to equalize gender ratios in the profession.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 9:35 p.m.

    A woman divorces her husband and goes to work; children (male and female) are often left to themselves and get out of control.

    Men as sole bread winner allowed for women to stay home and raise the children, but husbands also had a say in child-rearing. When men, the real fathers of the children of a stable marriage, are present and their views respected a good balance between discipline and understanding, justice and mercy, is achieved in the home.

    In the absence of the father this all falls apart, and the child has no ever-present male role model. When a boy turns about twelve he especially needs this, and at that age, if not before, mothers often aren't able or disposed to control their children alone. Far from being a civilizing influence on her male children, a situation develops in which the adolescent boy fills the power vacuum created by the absence of a father, and takes over "leadership", likely not of the best. Far from being an understanding, gentle, creation of the mother, a male child might become a bully and a tyrant, when male hormones are not tempered by experience, chivalry, responsiblily and maturity.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Dec. 29, 2013 9:12 p.m.

    An interesting study that confirms the obvious, but the conclusions drawn seem a bit of a mess.

    The evidence is overwhelming that too few adult/mature males in a community is a net negative, but what about the opposite? Is having an abundance of males a good thing – as Kruger concludes by citing the civilizing role women can play when too many men have to compete for women – or is it a bad thing, as Hudson concludes by citing what is happening in China. All other things being equal, both of these conclusions cannot be true simultaneously.

    Likely the former is true and China is an anomaly (due to other cultural factors), but you wouldn’t know it from this jumbled piece.

    And what does this article have to do with gay marriage? Some of the comments here contain more non-sequiturs than a Glenn Beck chalkboard presentation.

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 8:43 p.m.

    We have a dearth of male role models in public education. Some elementary schools you can't find a male adult from administrator down to the crossing guard. Even in secondary schools, males are lesser in number. While I believe it would be great to end the tide of divorce and the other ills of society well outlined above, that probably won't happen or best case happen overnight. Having more positive male role models in our schools can help.

    But the why are the male role models disappearing? Well, young married men can't raise a family on a teacher's salary. We need to change this by making teaching a more attractive profession generally and for males specifically.

    Finally, I would also suspect that most children from divorce are raised by mothers. When all the adult authorities figures are female (from Mom to the teacher to the daycare provider after school), this can lead to serious challenges, especially for boys. They need more people in their lives they can relate to.

    Dec. 29, 2013 8:31 p.m.

    There are four groups at risk with the introduction of "gay" marriage, if we pretend that the motivation behind it is having families: girls growing up without fathers, girls growing up without mothers, boys growing up without mothers, and boys growing up without fathers. The only one we know anything about is the last, and we don't really need studies for that - just take a look at inner-city Chicago, or DC, or LA. 1 out of the 4 is a complete disaster and the other three are complete unknowns, and we're willing to bet the future of civilization on it. I guess we'll pretty much get what we deserve, and it won't be pretty.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 8:22 p.m.

    intervention: Your assumption of my emotional state is quite wrong. I am not angry at all. I like to state the truth. whether someone is persuaded by it doesn't concern me in the least. I find myself laughing more than anything else when I read some of the insanity that "passes" as wisdom. Albert Schweitzer said, "Grow into your ideals so that life can not rob you of them." Marriage, between a man and a women, is one of those ideals that many will be robbed of, including those who enter into a gay marriage, because they stopped their own growth with poor choices. Society ought to do a better job of giving them a chance to make an appropriate choice.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 8:17 p.m.


    Thanks for telling us what you read into tbe article but I am not interested in your special interest spin on the research, I very clearly asked you to please quote from tbe article or the study anything about homosexuality or "thraditional marriage." The arricle and the research both very clearly state the two largest factor are men leaving the area to find work and incarcaration, if you want to solve the problem maybe we should start with bringing jobs back and fixing a broken criminal justice system.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Dec. 29, 2013 8:11 p.m.

    @bandersen - where did the gay sub-topic come into play? You completely lost me there. Also, the anti-government thread is a bit bizarre. If you really want to look at why the african-american community has issues with family, one only needs to look at what happened to the black family in America from 1621 until 1865 when families were torn apart - fathers sold off - and children taken from their mothers and sold to the highest bidder. It was not the government who did this - but free enterprisers who claimed the government had no right to regulate the free trade of property.

    This by no means justifies current behavior, but does explain some of its origins, where for 240 years, there was no concept of a black family. In many parts of the country black marriages were actually illegal. This included Utah. It was only the federal government stepping in that changed this dynamic.

    It is a complex issue with a long history - with many dirty hands. Excess poverty and wealth are both great indicators of problems from families.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 8:03 p.m.

    This confirms the obvious, that the lack of fathers/husbands in so many families is destroying society.

    Now, take one step further back and identify the reason for the disintegration of the family.
    Throw out these hypotheses:
    1. Liberal policies rewarding single mothers.
    2. Liberal promotion of an urban culture where families and fathers are denigrated.
    3. Hollywood "entertainment" mocking religion, families, fathers, work, and traditional values.
    4. The elimination of the former stigma attached to unwed pregnancies, promiscuity, and males who failed to support their children (legitimate or otherwise).

    These factors have been a major shift in our society, applauded by liberals and appalling to conservatives, which may be irreversible.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 7:53 p.m.

    I thought perhaps someone, academic, progressive, or whomever, would take issue with the gay marriage comment. The implications of what was said in this article are obvious; marriage between a man and a women stabilizes society. If you want to make excuses for those that won't live up to God's standard, in this case gay men, then be my guest, but don't nod your head about how the absence of men in children's lives is a reason for the problems and then excuse your own little special interest group! No, you can't do that without also admitting that you don't have a clue as how to solve it. I am sure some of the more enlightened, so called, thinkers will postulate a government mandate of sorts, with the appropriate money expunged from the honest taxpayer, that will solve it. Fortunately, fewer people are buying into the argument that government has all the answers if we can just compel enough people to oblige.

  • just-a-fan Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 7:22 p.m.

    Many men want to be in the lives of their children but are beat up by misguided judges and ex-wives who will do anything to drive a wedge between the kids and dad.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 7:06 p.m.

    p.s. Mr. Drummond, not to underscore the obvious, but if your comment doesn't validate the whole concept of government futility in solving problems, I really don't know what more to say. allowing the human heart, liberated from the grasp of government, to have full sway in answering the call of humanity is the way to solve most of the social ills this article talks about.

  • 483bzac West Valley City, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 6:18 p.m.

    Never have men fought against men who are fathers like they do today. Therefore a woman, seeing an opportunity to make more money, marry a new flame and "find their soul mate", casts aside all marriage vows at first sign of trouble for "better". Laws are terribly skewed and I think this is the story that should be reported. But wait, that is the way most of us male voters vote? Now a woman can go to court and say something akin to abuse and without proof get a new man, more money and sad kids. Imagine a male teacher aid in an elementary school. Why don't we trust them? Better yet, what man dares to have such a job when an un-cooperating kid can say something bad about him and have him thrown in jail without proof unless he has an expensive lawyer that he can't afford? This possibility is not mentioned in the article. We as a society don't like father figures (except our own father).

  • birder Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 6:05 p.m.

    This reminds me of the classic story of the elephants. In a population of elephants in Africa, the large males were removed. When this happened, the "teenage" elephants got way out of control. It seems like a similar thing happens with people. One of these days (maybe), society will wake up and see that the normal intact family of a married man and woman really is the unit that stabilizes society (if we don't destroy our civilization first).

  • intervention slc, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 5:51 p.m.


    Please do quote for us were or that gay marriage has anything to do with it. the study shows the men must be heterosexual, the study only addresses male to female ratios and does not address orientation at all. You are upset that those that support gay rights are not commenting on the article but did you read the article?

  • intervention slc, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 5:30 p.m.

    Actually not actuay

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 5:21 p.m.

    Interesting article. Pretty straight forward. Be a good Dad and a good male authority figure in the neighborhood and the whole community benefits. Odd that we somehow got away from this wisdom and have to rediscover it.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 4:57 p.m.

    Might I suggest the above posters actuay read the article before commenting? No were in this research does it mention any effect caused by gay marriage or the homosexuality, the study does discuss the absence of men due to men leaving to find work, incarcaration and violence none of which they link to gay marriage or homosexuality neither of which would effect ratios of men to women.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Dec. 29, 2013 4:44 p.m.

    In tact families (husband and wife) would do more to solve crime, poverty and violence than all the welfare programs in the world!

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 3:47 p.m.

    Of course, many here, if they read this article at all, will be the same ones that support Gay marriage, as if men marrying men is going to stabilize these areas, or any other area. But, alas, the answers are too simple and understandable for the intellectual or academic to admit. We must spend our time defending foolish notions just because someone had a notion, as if that is a reason to support it. Come on guys, be a man-you know the kind that takes on the responsibility of marriage, family life, and community! Gay marriage is a cop out! Stop supporting it!

  • carman Wasatch Front, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 3:21 p.m.

    Where are all of the typical liberal posters, who constantly put links to studies that support their positions. Yep, they are ignoring evidence that degrades their arguments. The "missing links" are stark in their absence on this story.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Dec. 29, 2013 2:51 p.m.

    When we start messing with the traditional family of husband, wife and children, things get messed up because of unanticipated consequences. Men stop being responsible husbands and fathers and kids grow up to be criminals. Abortion resulted in a skewing of the ratios between the sexes in China and other places and they have a terrible mess. Birth rates are below replacement rates in many countries the results of which will be economic disaster. Discouraging stay at home moms so women can have a career impacts the work force and diminishes the quality of parental child care and nurturing. It's the unanticipated consequences of these social experiments that can be so devastating to our society (consider Rome). Who can predict what will happen with gay marriage? Multiple partner homosexual marriages are a real possibility. Also, "families" with two or more people of different sexes (e.g. two women and three men) are becoming more common and are agitating for legal recognition. The social impact of these arrangements is frightening (increases in the spread of STDs, child neglect, crime, social chaos, violence, disease, etc.) What will things look like in a couple generations?

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 2:09 p.m.

    Since when do we believe anything coming out of a liberal university?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 1:15 p.m.

    If this is truly the case…

    why isn't Utah spending $2 million dollars against mothers like Octo-mom.?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Dec. 29, 2013 1:02 p.m.

    I sometimes wonder about the usefulness of studies like this. Anytime you take a complex subject, oh say like youth violence, and you try to attribute to a single variant, you really wonder about the researchers. Had the author done a study that looked at single parenthood, then correlated it to economic status, you start having something that is targetable. But to have a study that doesn't look at the same condition married in poverty, or single but stable economically, creating any useful corollary is near impossible.

    Possibly the research has that data, but it surely wasn't discussed here. Absentee parents has always been acknowledged problem. But not all kids with this issue end up having issues. What this study didn't explore is what is the difference between these population.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Dec. 29, 2013 12:34 p.m.

    Unfortunately, this study only confirms what we know about the absence of male role models in many inner cities. There is a partial solution to the problem that has also proved productive however, and that is to bring in male tutors in the public schools to fill the void. It works, but its implementation is hampered by federal laws that suggest that this is a form of discrimination, because the schools aren't hiring an equal number of female tutors.

    Maybe this is one case where Justices Kennedy and Scalia can work together to find a constitutional solution.