Russell Nieli writes:
…One can’t say how he might have turned out under different circumstances, but statistics show that having divorced parents, as Lanza did, plus a father who moves out of the household, remarries, and has little contact with his son for long stretches of time, is not the ideal formula for successful childrearing. Yet what sociologists call “family structure issues” were rarely discussed in the media, not even on conservative talk radio where one might have expected them to have a preeminent place. Most Americans, it seems, have so many divorced or single-parent neighbors, friends, and relatives (if they are not themselves divorced or living as single parents) that discussing family structure is simply too painful and too sensitive to be taken up in any honest or candid manner…
Categories: Children of Divorce, Fatherhood, Marriage
I really don’t like arguments like this one. Lanza sounds like he had a serious biological problem causing his mental health issues.
Here’s another thing to think about: having a child with a serious problem is hard on a marriage. Do parents of children with mental health issues get the support they need raising the child? This could strengthen marriage!
I think its important to remember that Adam Lanza’s parents divorced when he was seventeen. He did not grow up with an absentee father.
There is a constellation of contributing factors in school shootings. Divorce is not one of them. Young men who are socially isolated and/or with poor social skills, who also do not fit the traditional masculine stereotype, and who live in relatively socially isolated, tightly-knit rural or suburban areas that prioritize the traditional masculine stereotype over or in contrast to other images of masculinity comprise the risk factors. Also: there are distinct warning signs in most of these cases (verbal threats, written stories or journals, etc.).
everyone is using this event as a springboard for whatever is their pet peeve.
I am glad someone is actually addressing the issue of the family structure issue in the Lanza case. In fact. the first question that came to my mind when I heard about the shootings was I wonder if this young man came from a broken home, and what kind of relationship did he have with his father? Although his parents did not divorce until he was 17, I have read that they were separated prior to the actual divorce, and that his father was not actively involved in his life. Father absence is extremely painful for all children, no matter how old they are when it happens, and it is especially difficult for adolescent boys.
As someone who grew up with a single mother and a younger brother who never saw his father after the day he left, I have seen firsthand the difficulties that single mothers face raising healthy young men. My mother did her best, but she could not give him the one thing he desperately needed, a father to help teach him how to be a responsible man. My brother went on to get involved in drugs/criminal activity, and he suffers to this day from not having known his father.
I am not blaming what Adam Lanza did on his mother, or even on the breakup of his family; however, I think as a society we need to consider the very real association between father absence and violent/criminal acts by young men. To dismiss it or not even bring it up at all as at least part of the reason why this young man was so troubled is really dishonest. Biology alone does not determine our mental health—environment and especially family environment and relationships certainly plays a role. The next time something like this happens, I wish the experts would start by looking at the shooter’s family structure and what was missing/broken there, before they immediately resort to the standard get rid of guns argument.
“The next time something like this happens, I wish the experts would start by looking at the shooter’s family structure and what was missing/broken there, before they immediately resort to the standard get rid of guns argument.”
The guy who shot people at Virginia Tech had two married parents. The Columbine shooters had married parents. The guy who shot up the theater in Colorado had two married parents.
Divorced parents are not the problem.
There are no statistical studies suggesting that mass murderers who go on shooting sprees are more likely to have divorced parents.
Here are the things people who go on shooting sprees have in common:
They are men.
They are mostly white.
They have guns.
They may have been bullied in the past.
They may have been diagnosed with serious mental health problems.
They have guns with lots of bullets and the ability to keep firing.
Guns don’t cause these guys to snap, but they help them kill as many people as possible when they do.
aren’t most of them rather young as well? not many of them above their mid-twenties? or is that just the most recent cases?
To clarify, I was not saying that all or even most mass shooters come from broken homes, just that family structure should be part of the conversation, and at least acknowledged as we look for possible reasons for these kinds of acts. Additionally, I would note that somewhere around 70 percent of long term prison inmates come from fatherless homes, as do most of young men in gangs, so there is a link between criminal activity, including violent crime, and broken (i.e. fatherless) families. All I am saying is the question of family structure should at least be included in these discussions, not immediately dismissed as having nothing to do with it.
Well said, Diane.
On the bullying note, last year I read Dave Cullen’s book Columbine and something that really stood out to me was that it was actually one of the killers who was reported to have a history of repeatedly bullying and threatening other kids. When the mother of one of the kids who was threatened reported the threats to police, she was dismissed as “hysterical” – especially by the killer/bully’s non-absentee father.
Given that the vast majority of these mass shootings (and violent crime in general) are committed by men, I think what should also be a part of the conversation is the way society entitles men especially to engage in aggression while oftentimes trivializing women’s complaints about it.
When people suggest that boys need fathers around to teach them how to be men, I’m not sure what that means. Historically, so-called authentic masculinity has meant many different things across time and culture. It has not always been good for women. Or men. I’m wary of solutions that suggest that simply adding fathers to homes will be of great benefit.