Still, feminist commentators like Katha Pollitt and Gloria Steinem seemed to see the study as good news in a way, even if it did mean that more children might be at risk for a devastating disease. And even an author of the study couldn't resist an account of its implications that focused more on male egos than on schizophrenia. But at least the crowing about male biological clocks recognizes a father's contribution. Similarly, a survey showing that in 1997 both fathers and mothers spent significantly more time with their children than they did in 1981 made front-page news a couple of weeks ago, presumably because it seemed to counter common assumptions. It's a conversational default setting, a kind of social glue, a way to feel friendly with women you may not know very well.
Many fathers are absent altogether.
Unfortunately, the people who write the most about the politics of family life often have ideological investments in either denying or bemoaning this fact. On the feminist left, the aim is to keep alive a certain bristling indignation about the battles yet to be won, the long, long distance men still have to go. On the right, the ambition is to knock nurturing new-style dads. Hence the 1999 column by the conservative writer Danielle Crittenden in which she recorded her dismay not at fathers who have, say, ditched their kids but at those she sees dandling their babies at birthday parties. He was an actor, and at home a lot during the day.