New Commandment Men’s Ministries Blog
One Christian’s Review of “The Boy Crisis” by Warren Farrell and John Gray
Warren Farrell and John Gray document how father deprivation harms boys’ mental, physical, educational, and economic wellbeing. This review praises their defense of fatherhood and surprising acknowledgment of Christian faith, while challenging their explanations of fatherlessness, their limited attention to race and secularization, and the practicality of their proposed solutions.
Read the full post: One Christian’s Review of “The Boy Crisis” by Warren Farrell and John Gray
This post first appeared in NewCommandment.org.
Want to Learn More?
New Commandment Men’s Ministries helps churches organize teams of men who adopt widows, single moms, and others with long-term pressing needs.
All training materials and videos are free.
One thought on “One Christian’s Review of “The Boy Crisis” by Warren Farrell and John Gray”
This review doesn’t really engage with The Boy Crisis on its own terms. It critiques a simplified version of the argument instead of what Farrell actually says. The book’s core point is that father absence harms boys, regardless of whether it comes from divorce, non-marital births, or other causes, so pointing out that never-married couples account for more fatherless homes doesn’t refute the argument, it actually reinforces it.
Several of the counterarguments also rely on weak logic. For example, the claim that economic independence should lead to more fatherlessness in wealthier groups is an oversimplification that ignores other major factors like education, incarceration, and cultural differences. The review also leans heavily on selective statistics without addressing these confounding variables.
Where the critique really breaks down is in its shift from analysis to ideology. Claims about secularization causing widespread social decline are presented without solid evidence and rely on broad, debatable generalizations about history. Statements like “the more godless we are, the more godforsaken we become” are rhetorical, not analytical.
There’s also a double standard: Farrell is criticized for not covering certain factors in depth, while the reviewer introduces their own preferred explanations (religion, government policy) without the same level of evidence. On top of that, dismissing Farrell’s solutions as unrealistic without engaging seriously with them is a fairly superficial critique.
Overall, the review raises some valid questions but undermines itself by misrepresenting the book, relying on selective reasoning, and substituting ideological claims for careful analysis.