- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
February 25, 2009
Exclusive: Fatherless Families Contribute to the Destabilization of American Society
I’m no Obama fan. But here is the silver lining argument: Sure Americans elected their first “black” president. But more interestingly, black children (all children) now know a positive public figure in Washington – a married African-American family man!
Expressive divorces hurt children. “But divorce is only part of the problem,” according to the authors of The War Against Parents.
In 1998, Sylvia Ann Hewlett and Cornel West acknowledged that: “The other face of fatherlessness is the rapidly growing number of out-of-wedlock births and the virtual absence of men in these new single-mother families. The statistics are dramatic.”
Cornel West, an African American Marxist-style academic, is hard to characterize as a white patriarch, however. Ditto Hewlett. Best to snub them, right?
Anyway, here’s what they found in the Clinton period (and it wasn’t a stained dress): “Teenage unwed motherhood is rising among whites, but it is still much more common in the black community. One out of every three black mothers is an unwed teenager, and a third go on to have a second child while still in their teens.”
This explains so much.
On the other side of the pond, Peter Hitchens was writing about the difficulties with fatherless societies.
In 2000’s The Abolition of Britain, the very British columnist even confronted Britain’s “bastard” culture. “The new cruelty, which leaves hundreds of thousands of children without a proper family, is imposed through many acts of generosity by the state and the taxpayers, and through the broadminded tolerance of individuals and opinion-formers. It is therefore easier to bear in a society which has nationalized its conscience. The effects are absorbed passively, and cannot be blamed on any personal callousness by officials or politicians, though they condemn growing legions of women and their children to lives of noisy desperation.”
This is key: Yes, why are “non-judgemental” leftists so willing to condemn kids?
Socialism doesn’t work. And, don’t be fooled by “sex education experts.” Children don’t need peculiarly ugly broads teaching them how to put pink condoms on organic bananas – they need fathers.
Families – black and white – were all better off in the 1950s without sex chants. Back then, venereal diseases and fatherless fathers were exceptions. Now, in some parts of America and England, they are rules without rules.
And consider this: If after decades and millions of dollars, the state of California still can’t control sexual diseases, then what – pray tell – is the point of all this indoctrination?
In 2009’s Guilty Ann Coulter writes: “Back in the days when we weren’t required to constantly praise single mothers, a New York University study found single mothers to be ‘overly dominant, aggressive, narcissistic and bitterly hostile.’ And yet all of society has been trained to have nothing but sympathy for these aggressors.”
Just turn on your idiot box.
Adds Coulter: “Not surprisingly, Hollywood has taken a leading role in portraying single mothers as victims, while relentlessly promoting promiscuity, single motherhood, prostitution, and divorce to the detriment of the most vulnerable members of society. But if anyone makes a peep of criticism, suddenly it’s 1939 Germany and overpaid writers from Murphy Brown are the Jews.”
So if Hollywood truly loves America’s black children, then they better start getting jiggy with the sociologists – and some basic home truths. They better start listening. Thinking .Reading. Empathizing. (Oh, and let’s pull out of single-motherhood, as opposed to Afghanistan, Michael Moore. We’ll save millions!)
In 2001’s Love and Economics: Why the Laissez-Faire Family Doesn’t Work, Jennifer Roback Morse (who unlike Madonna taught economics for 15 years at Yale and George Mason University), makes this point: “It is not that I advocate mothers saying ‘wait until your father gets home’ as a disciplinary strategy. The fact that the father will eventually come home adds to the authority of the mother, whether she specifically invokes it or not: the child knows perfectly well that his father is coming home. The child needs to learn that he ought not to do everything that he can do. Who better to demonstrate to the child the importance of self-restraint than the father, the most powerful person in his little world?”
In Morse’s view, then, the average “father can convey the message at a lower cost and greater credibility than anyone else.”
And, if the father is a professional bum? What then? Well, we don’t need to throw out the children with the bathwater, do we? If the institution of marriage is a plane, and some bum pilots crash their planes, do we throw out the aviation industry and support hot air balloon rides to San Francisco?
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Ben-Peter Terpstra, an Australian-European satirist, is a contributor to a number of websites, from On Line Opinion (Australia's e-journal of social and political debate) to American Thinker. His pieces are also posted on his blog, Pizza Trays and Beer Bottles.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
