Eliminating fatherlessness
FatherhoodFamilyEducationIndustryFathers' ManifestoSignatoriesChildren
The Declining Birth and Marriage Rates
The assumption that undermining the role of the father in the family would improve any condition, reduce the number of single-mother households, or even reduce the number of single-father households is not born out by the data.  The application of Fourteenth Amendment “equal protection” to women in 1971 undermined that role seriously.
Per the US National Center for Health Statistics, the birth rate in the US had been relatively stable at around 24 births per 1,000 population for a century until the Fourteenth Amendment “equal protection” clause was applied to women.  It declined chronically since then and in 1994 it was 15 per 1,000 population, a 37.5% declince which resulted in 2,385,000 fewer births in the US in 1994 than there would have been if the birth rate had remained at its 1961 level.  Even with this decline in the birth rate, there were still 1,280,000 illegitimate births and 1.6 million abortions each year.  Per the Bureau of the Census, during this same period, fewer and fewer men got married, and the divorce rate more than doubled (from 2.2 per 1,000 population to 4.8), decreasing the percent of males who were married from 84% to 63%--a 25% reduction in the proportion of men who are willing to take on the responsibility of starting a family.  There can be no doubt that the havoc played on society by applying “equal protection” to families is a key factor which leaves this extra 21% of marriageable men unmarried.  With 96 million total men of marriageable age, there are now  20,160,000 fewer families than there would have been if the percent of males who were married had not declined.
This would have been enough families to have avoided all of the 1,280,000 illegitimate births and all of the 1.6 million abortions.  Making marriage a bad deal for men is not a good deal for women and children.  It is also not a good deal for taxpayers, who have to pay the $1 Million estimated life cycle cost of each single-mother household which can’t sustain itself.
This clear evidence of obvious social pathology is the direct result of a transition in our society from a matriarchy to a patriarchy.  Prior to 1961, the father was presumed to be the “head of the family” in accordance with basic Biblical principles.  The application of “equal protection” to women in 1961 switched responsibility for children from fathers to mothers (and therefore to the courts as mothers proved unable to meet the challenge).  The policy of the courts since that time of placing 92% of the children of divorce with their mothers caused a dramatic increase in the number of children whose biological mothers cohabit, where the children are 73 times more likely to be killed and 33 times more likely to suffer serious abuse than children in families.  David Blankenhorn in “Fatherless America” estimates that 39% of America’s children will go to sleep tonight without a biological father present compared to 3% who will sleep in a father-only home.
This greater incidence of abuse in single-mother households an indicator of why children from these environments are 8 times more likely to go to prison than children from families, and 16 times more likely than children from single-father households.  To accomodate this expansion of criminal activity the prison incarceration rate quadrupled since 1961, which has robbed vital resources from education, which further increased our economic problems.
The benefit children, women, and society derive from placing the father at the head of his family is not the creation of single-father households, but the preservation and creation of families.  Every society which has attempted to establish “equality” in family affairs has produced the same result--family breakdown, rising illegitimacy, rampant juvenile delinquency and crime and prison populations, decreasing education quality and standard of living, etc, etc, etc.  As the following chart shows, there is a distinct difference between societies with mother headed families and father headed families:
Sources:  International Monetary Fund, UN Statistical Summary, & Census Bureau
Country         Divorce Rate    National Budget         Matriarchy
                per 1,000 Pop.  as %of GDP              or Patriarchy?
Sri Lanka       0.015           6.7%                    Patriarchy
Brazil          0.026           13.9%                   Patriarchy
Italy           0.027           40.4%                   Patriarchy
Mexico          0.033           7.2%                    Patriarchy
Chile           0.038           11.5%                   Patriarchy
El Salvador     0.041           6.3%                    Patriarchy
Japan           0.042           15.2%                   Patriarchy
Ecuador         0.042           4.5%                    Patriarchy
Mauritius       0.047           7.0%                    Patriarchy
Thailand        0.058           6.9%                    Patriarchy
Syria           0.065           11.6%                   Patriarchy
Panama          0.068           16.4%                   Patriarchy
China           0.079           16.8%                   Patriarchy
Tunisia         0.082           16.0%                   Patriarchy
Korea           0.088           12.9%                   Patriarchy
Trinidad        0.097           15.4%                   Patriarchy
Barbados        0.121           28.2%                   Patriarchy
Finland         0.185           49.6%                   Matriarchy
Canada          0.246           19.9%                   Matriarchy
Australia       0.252           27.1%                   Matriarchy
New Zealand     0.263           28.7%                   Matriarchy
Denmark         0.281           58.3%                   Matriarchy
United Kingdom  0.308           40.9%                   Matriarchy
Russia          0.336           44.4%                   Matriarchy
Puerto Rico     0.447           41.0%                   Matriarchy
US              0.495           41.0%                   Matriarchy