In considering the status of the debate over the relevance of 'scientific',
as well as psychoanalytic approaches tothe effects of fatherlessness, I
have the following thoughts.

William argues the relevance of genetic knowledge (namely the repression
of) as the 'cause' of the effects seen with fatherlessness. This seems to
be a reasonable assertion in the following limited sense. That 'accepted'
knowledge (whatever we accept this to mean) has  effects that include a
reordered set of truths,beliefs,worldview,morality and cultural ethos is
evident. That a still 'unaccepted' or 'adopted' truth can and does have the
effect of 'repressing' it's eventual consequences would also seem to follow
logically. The 'represed' genetic knowledge that William speaks of would
thus seem to be linked causally to both fatherlessness as a behavior (as
can be seen as 'consequence' of morality,ethos,etc...), as well as causally
linked to the effects of fatherlessness that are a consequence of the
behavior. In this sense what William proposes seems to hold true.

The usage of concepts such as 'causality' can be a source of confusion.
When made more explicit much of the debate shifts. It would seem that to
argue the 'true' 'source' of causality for the effects seen with
fatherlessness contains such definitional confusion.

In keeping with this I would like to offer the following. The 'causality'
that William speaks of must include in
it's scheme ;     the genetic knowledge he speaks of,
                           the 'repression' of this knowledge,
                           the behavior of fatherlessness,
                           and, the effects of fatherlessness
These would seem to have a 'true' causal linkage. The behavior of
fatherlessness cannot logically be omitted from the causal linkage. To do
so makes the scheme fall apart. If it were not so then we could expect that
in the absence of behavioral absenteism we would still see our 'effects of
fatherlessness'.

To deny the causal linkage between behavioral absenteism and it's effects
must rely on denying both rules of logic as well as rules of empirical
science that are essential to linking 'repressed' genitic knowledge to the
effects of absenteism in the first place. To argue against one neccessarily
argues against both.

If the debate were to narrow to these considerations only, we would seem to
be missing much. Namely the questions that come from the inquiry into the
behavioral absenteism it's manifold causes and effects. I agree that
scientific knowledge will and can no doubt be relevant. That 'cognitive
knowledge' however is not a sufficient element to guarantee 'psychic
reality' would seem quite clear. Our psyche is a product of much more  than
pure cognition. As such the causes of both absenteism as a behavior as well
as it's effects requires insight into all those dimensions that make up the
human 'being'. The debate over which method of inquiry holds the 'real'
truth  thus seems to make litttle sense. That causal relationships
(correspondances?) exist between 'cognitive knowledge', behaviors,
'morality',ethos etc. is both a cultural as well as individual
(inta-psychic)'truth'.The debate I propose is as much a reflection of which
of these relavant dimensions is being 'repressed' by any one proponent as
it is a disagreement within any one of these areas.