Married Fatherhood Is Key to Solving the Masculinity Crisis

Across the United States, an unsettling trend has been emerging—one that suggests that young men are increasingly lost, disconnected, and adrift in a rapidly changing world. Recent reports reveal a growing number of young men that feel aimless, lonely, and uncertain about their place in society. Statistically, men are more likely than women to be living with their parents well into their 20s and even 30s. Academic achievement gaps increasingly favor females, with women graduating from both high school and college at higher rates than their male counterparts. 

These figures reflect more than just academic underperformance; they point to a broader societal issue—one that some have termed a "crisis of masculinity." This crisis is about more than test scores or employment statistics. It also reflects a loss of meaning, direction, and identity in a world where traditional roles are rapidly eroding.

A variety of solutions have been proposed to address this crisis. Acknowledging differences in early childhood development, one idea is to give boys an extra year before starting kindergarten. Another call is for more male teachers in public schools to serve as positive role models. Still others argue for greater investment in vocational education, moving away from the notion that a four-year college degree is the only viable route to financial success. These are all valuable suggestions, and each addresses important facets of the issue.

But they only get at a part of the problem. In order to understand why males are struggling to find meaning, it helps to ask: What is it that gives life meaning? 

This is a tricky question, and concepts such as meaning, happiness, and life satisfaction often overlap and are defined differently by different experts. However, the question has long puzzled philosophers, theologians, and psychologists alike. While definitions of meaning, purpose, and happiness differ depending on whom you ask, psychological research has yielded one resounding answer across time and cultures: relationships matter more than anything else.

Dr. Martin Seligman, one of the founding fathers of positive psychology, famously put it this way: “Other people are the best antidote to the downs of life and the single most reliable up.” Similarly, Dr. George Vaillant, a Harvard psychiatrist who led the longest study on adult development ever conducted, concluded that “the only thing that really matters in life are your relationships to other people.”

But why are relationships so essential to human well-being? What is it about human connection that gives life meaning and purpose?

At least part of the answer, I argue, can be found in our evolutionary roots. During the Pleistocene epoch, our ancestors faced unpredictable challenges, ranging from injury and illness to harsh weather or bad luck in hunting or gathering. The most successful human groups were those that could work together to solve problems, share resources, and protect one another. In such a world, strong social bonds were not just emotionally comforting—they were life-saving. This deep evolutionary reliance on social cooperation hardwired us to find fulfillment in connection. 

But a deeper answer to why relationships are rewarding has to do with the way nature shaped our family relationships. Most animals bear offspring that can function independently soon after birth. Human babies, however, are among the most helpless creatures at birth on the planet. A newborn giraffe can stand and walk within an hour. A blue whale calf can swim immediately after birth. Human infants, by contrast, are born extremely underdeveloped. They are unable to walk, eat, sit, or even fully sense their world without our help. 

Hence, developmental psychologists often refer to the first six months of human life as a “fourth trimester.” Because of this fragility, infants rely entirely on caregivers—primarily mothers—for survival. Nature has shaped infant behaviors such as crying, smiling, and cooing to strengthen the bond between parent and child. As a result, nature has developed within mothers a profound sense of love for their newborns. The social activist Dorothy Day wrote upon the birth of her first child: 

If I had written the greatest book, composed the greatest symphony, painted the most beautiful painting or carved the most exquisite figure, I could not have felt the more exalted creator than I did when they placed my child in my arms. . . . No human creature could receive or contain so vast a flood of love and joy as I felt after the birth of my first child.

Over thousands of generations, these deep emotional ties between mother and child have been reinforced by biology. The experience of pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding have created a powerful connection. For women, this connection can serve as a wellspring of meaning and purpose. In fact, a Pew Research study of over 5,000 Americans revealed that parents are twice as likely to describe time spent caring for their children as “very meaningful” compared to time spent working.

But what about fathers?

Here lies a fundamental asymmetry. While women carry and nourish life within their bodies for months, a man's biological contribution is relatively brief. It’s even possible for a man to conceive a child and not even know it. For a woman, such a scenario is absurd. This biological difference often translates into a more tenuous emotional connection between men and their children. (Among psychologists, this imbalance in the strength of biological ties between men and women and their children is technically termed differential obligatory parental investment. And many evolutionary psychologists recognize this as the root of virtually all psychological sex differences.)

Fatherhood—when linked with marriage—acts as a catalyst for healthy masculine development. 

In order to help offset this imbalance, there needs to be a strong cultural mechanism that links men to their children. For most of history, this has been a fundamental but under-recognized purpose of marriage. As a social-biological institution, marriage has provided a cultural expectation that encouraged men to remain present, invested, and protective—not just of their partners, but also of their offspring. Yet as divorce rates surged in the latter part of the 20th century, the cultural scaffolding that once helped anchor men to family life began to erode.

The consequences have been significant. In Western society, following divorce, children overwhelmingly remain with their mothers, even in so-called joint custody arrangements. The father-child relationship is often reduced to bi-weekly visits, brief phone calls, and financial transactions. The journalist Solomon Jones, writing from personal experience, describes divorced fatherhood as a “disjointed tapestry of love and distance, longing and hurt.” He speaks to a painful reality: “A father’s love is so often expressed through providing and protecting. And it’s difficult to provide and protect without presence.” For fathers, the absence of marriage often becomes the absence of fatherhood, or at least the kind of active, emotionally rich fatherhood that provides the most powerful forms of love and meaning. In short, the quality of a man’s marriage is a strong predictor of the quality of his fathering. 

In fact, the link between marriage and fatherhood is such that some sociologists have referred to them as a “package deal.” And while research overwhelmingly confirms that children raised in intact, biological marriages enjoy numerous advantages—academic, emotional, and financial—there are also powerful benefits for men. Becoming a father can be transformative. It can awaken a man to his deepest capacities for love, sacrifice, and responsibility. But to activate this transformation, he must be engaged—not just biologically, but socially and emotionally.

Charles Ballard, a social worker in Cleveland, recognized this dynamic. In working with absentee fathers in struggling communities, Ballard rejected the conventional wisdom long held among academics that economic stability had to come before men could become capable fathers. Instead, he prioritized reconnecting fathers with their children. Through home visits, counseling, and parenting programs, Ballard helped over 2,000 men re-enter their children’s lives. The results were striking. Only 12% of these men were employed full-time when the program began. But after reestablishing their paternal roles, 62% had secured full-time work, and another 12% had found part-time jobs. Over 95% began contributing financially to their children’s care.

Ballard’s work demonstrates something deeply intuitive yet often overlooked: that purpose is a powerful motivator for productivity. When men feel needed, when they are responsible for someone beyond themselves, they often rise to the occasion. Fatherhood—when linked with marriage—acts as a catalyst for healthy masculine development. 

So, what is to be done about the masculinity crisis? Several potential solutions have been offered. And as we seek such solutions—through education reform, mentorship, and job training—marriage and fatherhood must also be part of the equation. 

Samuel T. Wilkinson, MD is Associate Professor and the Medical Director of the Yale Depression Research Program. He is a Fellow of the Wheatley Institute at Brigham Young University. The ideas in this essay are drawn from his book, Purpose: What Evolution and Human Nature Imply About the Meaning of Our Existence, published by Pegasus Books.