The left’s position on single mothers mystifies me. Slate Magazine reported recently that “Most children born to women under 30 now are born to single mothers.” They don’t speculate as to whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. They simply blast away at Mitt Romney for being soooo 1950’s.
But I can’t help but wonder what the left thinks of single mothers. When arguing about the culture the left will often defend single mothers. They say, “Who needs a father?”
The New York Times recently ran an op-ed called “Men, Who Needs Them?” that argued that men are becoming “less relevant to both reproduction and parenting.”
The left seems to celebrate single mothers as brave heroic people. And don’t you dare question their choice because children are not (I repeat NOT) worse off at all because they don’t have a Dad.
OK?
But then, the left turns around and argues that it’s better for a baby to be aborted if a single woman can’t afford to have the child. They argue that there’s a connection between the lack of domestic spending for single mothers and the high abortion rate.
So which is it? You can’t really argue that children of single mothers are perfectly fine and then argue for more public spending on them or else abortions will increase.
I’m pretty sure that logic isn’t going to change their minds. The left has simply adopted the “I’m gonna’ do what I darn well please and you have to pay for it” mentality. And the plight of single mothers and their children are subservient to the cause of increasing the tidal wave of government spending.
September 25, 2012 at 6:24 pm
Actually, patrilineality (the children are in their father's clan, not their mother's) has a huge advantage over matrilineality—which is why several groups of Native Americans, e.g. the Tlingit and the Choctaw (both of whom were at a very high level of cultural development—roughly as civilized as the Vikings, and a lot nicer), were transitioning from the latter to the former at the time of contact.
That advantage, of course, is that fathers invest ego in their children. Meanwhile in most matrilineal systems (1/8 of my town comes of cultures with them, the Navajo and the Hopi), the major male presence in a child's life is his mother's brother. A Navajo man tends his wife's sheep and fights her enemies, but his children learn their prayers (religion in most Native American societies is a male matter—Wise Women are mostly a Eurasian patriarchal thing) from his brother-in-law.
September 25, 2012 at 9:00 pm
Sophia's Favorite — I was so intrigued by your comment that I went to your blog, only to find that it was near-impossible to read. Oh well. Anyway, that's fascinating, about the Choctaw being in transition from matrilinealism to patrilinealism.
September 26, 2012 at 12:07 am
Not all in the left thinks, "Who needs a father?" Many single mothers are single and mothers because they are 1. pro-life, 2. suffering from a mistake of their youth, and/or 3. wishing the father of their children wasn't a deadbeat, abuser, or too childish to make a marriage commitment. I do know heroic women who are single parents, who if they had their druthers would love a father for their children, but who can't seem to find any decent men. You mentioned the pro-life aspect, but single parenthood isn't a black-and-white thing that can be blamed on the left, or the left's most loud-mouthed spokes(wo)men.
Your rant seems to go after single moms as the baddies here, but a more balanced rant would include jabs at the other half of the parental equation. It's a dysfunctional society that we should be ranting about, and finding solutions for, not the rare feminazi who has no use for a man. And as for conservatives, if we can't see that the single-parent issue is complex, real, and ultimately fixable, then we really are out of touch with reality. I haven't seen any immediate, realistic solutions coming from the right. Have you?
September 26, 2012 at 12:07 am
We should DNA test to confirm paternity and make fathers pay child support…. not the government.
September 26, 2012 at 2:26 am
"religion in most Native American societies is a male matter—" Atheism has obliterated God, the Father, from our founding principles. God, the Father is our Creator and Endower of unalienable rights. Roe v. Wade has obliterated the father from the generation(verb) of his children. The father of the newly begotten has no rights according to Roe v. Wade, even while the father's genes generate his likeness, the father of the single mother's child does not legally exist. The sovereign personhood of the male progenitur is alienated and he becomes a man without a country, a man without posterity, a man without family. The fallout results in the state being liable for the child and for all of the peoples' unalienable rights. Since the state has not protected the unalienable rights of the father, the peoples' unalienable rights are squandered and the possession of the child is assumed by the state. This is premeditated tyranny, emancipated deviltry and slavery.
September 26, 2012 at 2:39 am
"I haven't seen any immediate, realistic solutions coming from the right. Have you?" Re-enfranchise the male person as "father" as soon as God, our Father, is acknowledged in the public square. Freedom Walking is sowing prosperity as the Morning Sun rises. Freedom is from God, our Father, as is the Sun and as is prosperity. What are we waiting for? Militant feminism has emasculated our sons, our economy and our nation.
October 5, 2012 at 7:55 pm
The New York Times recently ran an op-ed called "Men, Who Needs Them?" that argued that men are becoming "less relevant to both reproduction and parenting."
This is because men continue to give up their contribution to the creation of life for money.
— Crudity Warning —
If they'd stop jerking off into the cup for pay and treated their body like the temple God designed it as, they would be relevant once again. 😛