>Dragan,
>
>>>Does anyone object to the lack of a "mother figure"? Or is the pater familias so important because it projects (psychologically) into further figures of boss, commander, priest, landlord, and any male god you may put at the end of the line. So a father figure is deemed to be necessary in order to perpetuate the male-ruled hierarchies and make sure there's never a true equality of genders.
>
>I suppose that is one possibility. Another possibility is that most of the stats are for absent father figures rather than absent mother figures because that is what seems to happen in the real world.

Perception, my dear Watson. The guys who design the data to be collected are mostly male, or just reflecting the general male-run opinion. And since the custody in case of divorce usually goes to the mother, the cases where it goes to father didn't merit statistical significance, or scientific importance... or are just perceived so.

>>>As to the evidence you mention, sure - this is a man's world. With nobody there to tell them all the dirty tricks that most women just don't want to have anything with... of course they're less equipped for the society as it is now.
>
>Not sure what you mean.

Let's see... how would a boy raised by two mothers know how to talk to the guys at the golf club, or at the pub, or in any other all-male situation? He'd surely fail at some point, just like I wouldn't know how to walk on those impossibly thin and high heels. He may pick some from his pals at school, but there's some man-to-man things one has to pick up by imitating a senior person of one's own gender. Likewise, a daughter of two fathers probably wouldn't walk or do her makeup and dress as elegantly as she may have picked up from a senior of her own gender.

So they wouldn't come as prepared for inter-gender interactions, or a few other society things which kids in mixed marriages regularly learn by just looking at their own families. And then there's the pressure from the society, where a lot of people would gladly ostracize the kids because their parents aren't the right mix, which would impede them even more. But that's not their parents' fault - they didn't invent that pressure.

>>>Does that really/necessarily mean they're worse persons?
>
>Did somebody suggest that?

My sentence implied that "less equipped for the society" may be understood so. IOW, I didn't get that from your sentence, but from an imaginary reader of my sentence. Seems to be I've gone the wrong way - first, an answer, then the rhetorical question.