I'm not quite sure that I fully grasp what point William is making
concerning genetic advances
as related to the absenteism of fathers. Nor do I fully appreciate the
seeming conflict between
psychoanylitical theory and 'scientific' psychology.  Perhaps these
thoughts will help bring some
more clarity.

It would seem fairly evident that science, philosophy, religious thinking,
or other categories of behavior
one would delineate, each offer attention and understanding to
corresponding dimensions of existance
Without getting too metaphysical, it need not matter what specific
proportions any object we consider
is comprised of, sufficient to acknowledge that existence (truth,reality?)
is complex and multi-faceted.

It would thus seem absurd to me to argue the ideological merit of any one
approach to psychology or
understanding behavior. Some aspects are clearly understood and perhaps as,
or most, effectively dealt
with from a strictly scientific (quantifiable) approach. Equally relevant
is that that which is more clearly
'understandable' from a psychoanalytical context (religious,intuitive?) is
clearly best dealt with in this
context.  My personal opinion in this debate has two points.

1-That psychoanylitical theory is more incorporating of relevant factors,
and far better suited to
arriving at novel meaningful understanding of multi dimensional behavior

2-That scientific method can identify relationships and offer them
authoritative validity, as well as
verify the validity of theory or hypotheses . These functions can both
assist/direct and augment the
status of psychoanalysis bringing it wider authority and increasing it's
practical assessibilty.

As a final comment on William's remarks.I'm not too sure that I get how
advancing science (genetics)
relates to the effect that fatherlessness has on children. As far as
correspondance is conserned, no
doubt there is one happening between male behavior and social/institutional
behavior (specifically your mentioned advances in genetics.) That we are in
a historical period greatly characterized by quantifiable
pursuits of knowledge and a de-emphasiszed set of non-scientific
(aesthetic, experiential, 'grounding')
pursuits seems to correspond well with emerging trends in male behavior. In
fact with the intensified
'rational innerworld' and the diminished capacities for experiential
connection, it is not surprising to
see the relevance of undesirable experiential concerns (effects of
fatherlessness) being rationalized
out of the way.

There would seem to be no relevance to whatever science may or may not come
to understand
about our genetics, and the relevance of our behavior's effects with
respect to parental absenteism.
It is not some unseen factor that is the 'true' cause for absenteism's
effects. The child's development
could care less if there exists some genetically identifiable reason that
makes it more difficult for a man to parent than a woman.