Psychological Effects Of Growing Up Without A Father

After doing extensive research, I have discovered that the effects of absent fathers in children lives is detrimental. The approach that was taken was not a sociological one, but a psychological one. A sociological perspective would dig deeper into the effects of the general population. It would estimate the damage done and put it in terms to better understand why a father might be absent. The articles that were found focused more on the individual children and how they react. A sociological perspective would aim more towards the reasoning. For example, a father might have left due to a prison sentence, bad relations with the Childs mother, addictions, divorce and many more reasons. These reasons are the sociological perspective of father absence. 

According to psychology, there are numerous psychological effects of an absent father. Besides the sociological perspective, the psychological perspective has a different focus. It focus's on how the child reacts. The child may suffer and has a greater chance of suffering from a father not being in their lives, especially boys. These effects may be injurious and long lasting. Some suffer for the rest of their lives.

There has been research done by psychologist that studies these effects. Children are more likely to be aggressive, be depressed, have low self-esteem, do poorly in school, more likely to use drugs and more likely to end up incarcerated or commit suicide. The research shows numerous negative effects on the children. According to Sara McLanahan in The Causal Effects Of Father Absence, " studies that compare parental death and divorce often find that even if both have significant effects on well-being, the estimates of the effect of divorce are larger than those of parental death." An absent father has a huge effect on a Childs life weather or not people realize it. 

Research still continues to answer the questions of the importance of a father. "Why can't we grow up without a father and not have any problems?" "Where can these kids find the strength and the help to push through?" The perspective of the children are being represented. The children are the ones suffering and the ones who become psychologically damaged. 

By having an absent father, it has taught me a lot. Life is not fair and it will never be. We have to work with what we got and make the best of it. If we dwell on the pastt and all the negative things going on in our lives, then we will get nowhere. There is no guarantees in life. Who knows if we will achieve greatness or if we will even find love. All we really know and all we really have is ourselves. We have to believe in ourselves and believe we can do anything we put our mind to. 

After reading the articles from some sociologist and a journalist, my thoughts were all over the place. In a way, I kind of agreed with all of them. 

Beginning with Patricia Hill Collins, she talks about two different strategies of intellectual activism and explains that both are important for building communities. She has an insight that not every sociologist has. She is a black feminist. She did not only give insight on race and gender but she discussed class and sexuality. There are disadvantages in many categories but she is a fine example of a black women who proved that anyone can be successful. 

Next, Orlando Patterson critiqued the world of sociology. He explained how there is a neglect in showing the importance of culture and those who are less advantaged. Orlando made three points on culture and public policy from his recent work on black youth. (1) Culture is not immutable. History of change in America shows that cultural values, norms, beliefs, and habitual practices may be easier to change than structural ones. (2) "Culture of elites and policy makers is just as important in understanding the reproduction of poverty as the cultures of the poor themselves." (3) Black people as well as others usually are not offended to change their culture if they are persuaded that it is in their best interest.

In the third article, Fabio Rojas explains how academia and activism don't mix. He made several good points about how academia is built for scholarship. Activism is about promoting social change and academia is knowledge. 

Nathan Jurgenson suggests "how academics 'can' become relevant." The first point is about how academic work should not have a price on it. This just makes it a lot more difficult for people to access. He believes in "accessibility by availability." The other point he made was "accessible by design." basically saying that ideas should be expressed so everyone can understand it and be interested in it. 

Lastly,Karen Sternheimer discusses "the promise and perils" of working with journalists. The goal is to share sociological perspectives and research on current issues with the public. One of her main points is getting the facts rather than an opinion of a sociologist. Facts are credible. 

There are several roadblocks as stated earlier. Nathan Jurgenson has a good point for getting rid of roadblocks. Make it more accessible by making it cheaper or free and making it interesting to read. Orlando Patterson and Patricia Hill Collins both agree that race, gender and status are a huge road block for many people. They experience less opportunity to be able to pursue things in their lives. 
Social sciences should influence public debate. People should understand the challenges and roadblocks that others actually face. Like Orlando Patterson mentioned, having the elites be aware of poverty is important. 

In my opinion, everyone should be sociologically mindful. Being aware that society is dynamic and fluid is important because we are all apart of it.understanding how humans interact is very important in order to allow change to happen. Patricia Hill Collins article stuck out the most to me. I am a feminist as well and she is inspiring. She gives people hope to fight for what they want. 

I believe that it is kind of sad that this is a debate being held by people with PhD's. This should not even be a debate. Race, gender, sex and class should not matter. But it does and the fight needs to start somewhere.

Sociology, to me, began with psychology. I am a big psychology fan and it is what I seem to draw to. With psychology usually only pertaining to one person, the individual. Sociology is more groups of people like trends or demographics. Sociology is more about groups as a whole and psychology is simply the individual within the society. Sociology and psychology both lead to the sociological perspective. The sociological perspective is human behavior and its connection to society as a whole. There are connections between one's behaviors and the society they live in. Each society has their own sociological perspective because of the differences each society claims as their norms.

Society can be extremely useful in terms of grouping and understanding ourselves as well as other people. It makes in easier to talk about groups of people and their behaviors. Sociology allows us to learn about each other which can create opportunities to help one another. It gives us the understanding of why people do what they do.The benefits of the sociological perspective are that it helps us to recognize the diversity humans have and to allows for the understanding of the challenges of living in a diverse world. Also, the sociological standpoint allows us to have a better understanding of ourselves. Understanding ourselves is the gateway to understanding everyone else.

Sociology can be used in so many different ways other than in the classroom. Sociology helps develop one's appreciation of diversity and knowledge base about human behavior, culture, and social change. It helps us look more objectively at our society and other societies.