Sunday, May 8, 2016

A Feminist Mother's Day

It took a tragedy for Sheryl Sandberg to become a single mother. Hillary Clinton notwithstanding, it takes more than a village to raise a child.

Yesterday, Sandberg tried to use Mother’s Day to offer up a feminist message on Facebook.

She wrote:

Our widespread cultural assumption that every child lives with a two-parent heterosexual married couple is out of date. Since the early 1970s, the number of single mothers in the United States has nearly doubled. Today, almost 30 percent of families with children are headed by a single parent, and 84 percent of those are led by a single mother. And yet our attitudes and our policies do not reflect this shift.

Naturally, Sandberg is sharing this information in order to persuade everyone that government needs to deal with these problems. Hillary should have entitled her book: It Takes the Government.

Sandberg offered some facts:

Thirty-five percent of single mothers experience food insecurity, and many single mothers have more than one job—and that does not count the job of taking care of their children. A missed paycheck or an illness can present impossible choices. A single mother living in San Jose said that each month she has to choose between putting food on the table and paying her cell phone bill. When she does not pay her phone bill, she spends her night shift—her second job of the day—worried that her son did not make it home from school through their unsafe neighborhood because he is unable to call her.
If you share my special mind warp you will find it impossible to read these facts and not ask yourself: Who was militating for single motherhood? Who was saying that women were so independent and autonomous, so strong and powerful, that they did not need men? Who was telling women to liberate their sexual urges and to disregard all of the potential consequences?

You see the point. Sandberg is militating against a world that prior generations of feminists helped create. If you made the mess you should not call on government to solve the problems. You ought to launch a pro-marriage movement.

Having made herself into a leading feminist voice, Sandberg should have held the sisterhood to account for having created this mess. Alas, being a good feminist means never taking responsibility for what happens when people live according to your counsel.

Truth be told, it all began in the early 1970s when second-wave feminism washed up on America’s shores. Directly or indirectly the movement caused a spike in the number of divorces, of broken homes and of cohabiting couples. It liberated women from the shackles of housewifery and homemaking. It drew them into consciousness raising groups where they discovered how oppressed they really were. It told them to go on strike or to leave their comfortable suburban concentration camps. In the brave new feminist world men and women would share all responsibilities for homemaking. In the real world, women found themselves alone, as single mothers.

In 1992 Dan Quayle stepped into the debate when he declared that perhaps it was not such a good idea for a television show “Murphy Brown” to portray single motherhood as just another lifestyle choice.

Quayle said:

It doesn’t help matters when prime-time TV has Murphy Brown, a character who supposedly epitomizes today’s intelligent, highly paid professional woman, mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone and calling it just another lifestyle choice.

Quayle was never seen as an especially astute or intelligent human being, so his thought was widely mocked. The feminist furies attacked him mercilessly for being a male chauvinist, an unrepentant patriarch and a sexist misogynist.

And yet, twenty years after Quayle delivered his speech, Isabel Sawhill, from the liberal Brookings Institute, declared that he had been right. Uh, oh!

In her words:

Twenty years later, Quayle’s words seem less controversial than prophetic. The number of single parents in America has increased dramatically: The proportion of children born outside marriage has risen from roughly 30 percent in 1992 to 41 percent in 2009. For women under age 30, more than half of babies are born out of wedlock. A lifestyle once associated with poverty has become mainstream. The only group of parents for whom marriage continues to be the norm is the college-educated. 

Some argue that these changes are benign. Many children who in the past would have had two married parents could have two cohabiting parents instead. Why should the lack of a legal or religious tie affect anyone’s well-being? 

Of course, the people who believe that these changes are benign were promoting them. They believe that marriage is a patriarchal plot to keep women enslaved in the home and that any efforts to destroy it are ultimately a good thing.

To celebrate Mother’s Day, I will quote Sawhill’s arguments in favor of marriage:

First, marriage is a commitment that cohabitation is not. Taking a vow before friends and family to support another person “until death do us part” signals a mutual sense of shared responsibility that cannot be lightly dismissed.


Second, a wealth of research strongly suggests that marriage is good for children. Those who live with their biological parents do better in school and are less likely to get pregnant or arrested. They have lower rates of suicide, achieve higher levels of education and earn more as adults. 


Third, marriage brings economic benefits. It usually means two breadwinners, or one breadwinner and a full-time, stay-at-home parent with no significant child-care expenses. 

She concludes:

But in the end, Dan Quayle was right. Unless the media, parents and other influential leaders celebrate marriage as the best environment for raising children, the new trend — bringing up baby alone — may be irreversible.   

To her credit, Sawhill places the blame where it belongs. Up to a point. She should have mentioned that the media and influential leaders who have tried to undermine marriage are marching under the banner of feminism.

Happy Mothers’ Day!


priss rules said...

Feminists, homos, black Democrats, and etc all have the same gripe.

They promote and defend bad/decadent/debauched/destructive behavior. But, it's supposed to be good because it is anti-white, anti-heteronormative or other ridiculous excuse that sounds 'intellectual' and 'smart'.

The bad behavior leads to huge problems, but the behavior is not to blame. How can it be bad when it is 'progressive' and 'antiheteronomative'?

The problems and negative consequences are to be blamed on the remaining white heteronormative people who should pay more taxes and create more problems for those who cause the problem.

Take the HIV epidemic in the homo community. It happened because the homos were humping each other like rabbits. But we can't blame them because homos are saints according to PC. If they contract AIDS by wild buggering, they are mere victims of our 'indifference'.

Same with blacks. Blacks kill blacks and non-blacks, but we are supposed to follow the moron narrative of Black Lives Matter.

But the Lib media promote and enforce this rotten narrative.

US is no longer a sane/serious democracy. It is an empire of lies.

Sam L. said...

What got left out was the Dem's "War on Poverty" and giving welfare to women without husbands, leading to the perverse incentive to insure no man was living with the woman and his children.

Meeeea said...

Somehow this quote I read the other day seems relevant: (emphasis mine)

On Power [Bertrand de Jouvenel]

Where will it all end? In the destruction of all other command for the benefit of one alone - that of the state.

In each man's absolute freedom from every family and social authority, a freedom the price of which is complete submission to the state. In the complete equality as between themselves of all citizens, paid for by their equal abasement before the power of their absolute master - the state. In the disappearance of every constraint which does not emanate from the state, and in the denial of every pre-eminence which is not approved by the state. In a word, it ends in the atomization of society, and in the rupture of every private tie linking man and man, whose only bond is now their common bondage to the state. The extremes of individualism and socialism meet: that was their predestined course." -- Excerpts from "On Power: The Natural History of its Growth" by Bertrand de Jouvenel, originally published in 1945.
Posted by gerardvanderleun at April 2

priss rules said...

Speaking of mother's day, I wonder about this one's mother.

Bus28stuff said...

If you want to see the damage up close and personal of what happens when you raise children as a single mother without a father in the home (i.e. a family) then volunteer at a local prison. After three (3+) years teaching in a Faith Based Program in Texas, Monday – Thursday, and many talks over the years with the unit chaplain and his staff and I can state that approximately 99% of the 1,600 inmates at the unit came from a single parent home. The Chaplain says that this unit is not unique but is representative across the state of the many units he has served at.
These are the first generation of men that were raised without a dad in the home. The anger most of them feel at not having a dad is so thick at times you could cut it with a knife. This unit is made up of middle aged men of all races and from every socio-economic group and every one of these inmates will be released in the next 15 years to be your neighbor.
The “general story” is Mom was (sometimes had a high school education) never home because she was working trying to earn a living since either dad did not/could not pay child support or she did not know who the dad was so all she had was the government paycheck, or she was out looking for her next baby daddy, or to get high(drink/drugs). The only male presence most had was whichever male that Mom would temporarily shack up with and would be replaced by the next male in revolving door that did not stop. The lucky ones had grandparents that tried to raise them when they were around, usually after mom could not handle them anymore and they had already reached late teens. Too late to be able to modify the behavior that would lead them to prison.
But no one from the feminist argument wants to discuss these FACTS of the destruction of the family. They want to live free. YEA for them and we the taxpayer again has to pick up the tab for the prisons, officers, room and board for the sons and daughters they were too busy to raise.

Avraham said...

very good analysis of the problem.

Anonymous said...

Did Sandberg not notice which industry drove up rents in San Jose?

priss rules said...

One of the great contradictions of current ‘leftism’ is its immense capitalist wealth.

There was a time when the Left had some real inkling of the conditions, problems, and challenges of the real people.

Grapes of Wrath and Raisin in the Sun know real social problems and understand the value of family and morals.

But the new ‘left’ is made up of rich capitalists and hipsters in haute communities funded by them.
Thus, in their world of immense privilege, they are shut off from real people. Worse, the entertainment industry run by rich Libs pervert people’s morals with stuff like Jerry Springer, MTV, Miley Cyrus, and etc.

Sandberg’s conflates her billionaire experience with single-motherhood(due to death of hubby) with all the single-mothers who ended up that way through trashy shallow behavior and who would do better with a healthy dose of morality and responsibility(that have been made unfashionable by decadent culture and media that promote Bruce ‘Caitlyn’ Jenner as the new paragon of courage and values).
One saving grace of the old days is that, despite the poverty, even poor whites and blacks(like in Grapes and Raisin) had family values and sense of morals.

But in the world of globo-privilege(that favors globalist elites over native masses all over the world), the new ‘leftist’ proposals are all fantastic, fruitopian, fancy-pants, precious, smug.
Caviar and Cocktail ‘leftism’ has no understanding of real people and problems. We need Grapes and Raisin leftism for the people.

With the likes of Zucky and Bill Gates as the face of the new ‘left’, what is real anymore?