Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Dan Quayle WAS right....we knew it back then...

...but we were PC'd into retreating and keeping mouths shut.  After all, it's COOL to be experimental, to have kids out of wedlock, to shove off tradition. It's freeing!  It's open minded!   So, we cringed for the children but we couldn't say too much.  And shame is not in the American lexicon anymore, so the trend is growing as you can see in the chart below.  We should have spoken up, we should have braved the angst and mockery of the "very cool" types, but we didn't.  And children and society will suffer.

THIS article's parting words are troubling because we know things will not change, making this not only a compelling article, and a sort of cathartic article, but a really daunting look into a very bleak American future.  Because Murphy Brown was wrong.
Do you think this is no big deal?  Or do you feel babies are better off born into a married union?  Can this trend turn around?

Z

34 comments:

Ducky's here said...

It is a big deal and loss of the family unit will weaken us.

Will this turn around? No.

Silverfiddle said...

It is a big deal, and more and more studies confirm a strong correlation between out of wedlock births and poverty.

Lisa said...

this makes us no better than a bunch of stray cats who can't survive without someone feeding them or sterilizing them.

Z said...

Ducky, I'm surprised.

SF...a strong tie to poverty, as the article posits, you're right.

Lisa...I often get that feeling when I hear about 'hooking up' rooms at universities, etc. Or hear about kids having sex on roofs, etc...it's taken all the beauty of sex in a meaningful relationship, hopefully marriage, robbing our kids of SO much, and it seems like they're nothing much better than cats..you're right.

Pris said...

Good post Z, and timely.

Of course it's a big deal, and yes babies are better off born into a married union.

It's possible I think, that with the economic downturn more marriages will stay together.

I've never been one to go along with trends, just to be "trendy". I've said before, my Dad told me when I was a kid, to be true to myself, and I've never forgotten that.

During the women's movement because I stayed home,I was insulted often, and told, "but what about your sisters"? My answer was always the same. I said, "I have one sister and that's enough for me".

Those attempts at laying a guilt trip on me never worked. Mr. Pris and I agreed that what we thought was best for our children, and for us, was what mattered and to hell with what others thought we should do.

Looking back, I'm glad we stuck to our guns.

Children paid the price for that "cool" experiment, and are still paying for it.

The family has always been the strong foundation for this country. Having children out of wedlock, IS irresponsible, and children are left too much on their own, when they are immature, and making wrong decisions.

No parent can go back, and change a young person's outlook once a child grows to be a teen basically on his own. The kid's likely to say, "I'll do what I want". And the parent is shocked into realizing he/she is not respected, or regarded as holding sway over the child.

By then, it's too late, and the parent has to hope that their child will come around. So much for "cool"!

Fredd said...

Murphy Brown was wrong on virtually everything. She was (is) a microcosm of Hollywood values.

They differ not a whit from Nancy Pelosi's 'San Francisco values', as Newt would put it.

In other words, liberalism run amok.

Lisa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lisa said...

to add to what SF wrote there is also a correlation with men not having to respect women or take responsibility when they can just pass the buck onto the taxpayer.
I had a black friend who told me that the 6th of every month all the baby daddies would show up at the door of their baby mamas with their hand out because they knew the checks were cashed by then.
This is the society LBJ and liberal policies have created. You can't even blame the people because they are just victims created by democrats to keep thm destitute and dependent on them just like Obama would like to do to all of us.

Sam Huntington said...

This is such a complex issue. Today, we are raising our children in homes without fathers. Today, children call their mothers by their first names, and they call their grandmother “Mommy.” Does anyone really wonder why our kids are so screwed up? Our nation’s future depends on subsequent generations, and this is the best we can do? Whenever someone steps up to the plate to speak about this problem in a forthright manner, the progressive/communist left screams bloody murder —as they did with Mr. Quayle. The moron Hillary Clinton thinks it takes a village to raise a child, while our society produces far too many nitwits like Murphy Browns and Sandra Fluke.

Ducky's here said...

“Without a family, man, alone in the world, trembles with the cold.”

--- Andre Maurois

Law and Order Teacher said...

Z,
I've spent nearly the last 40 years in professions made more difficult and more violent directly as a result of the breakdown of the American family. The loss of family values in Europe has resulted in the government taking over the duties formerly done by families.

The government is responsible for everything families used to do. The government is now the family. We're working down that road. If there isn't a change we'll be in same fix as Europe. Think about how progressively dependent we are becoming on the government, then look at Europe and glimpse the future.

I think BO's fixation government intervention at least originates in his upbringing. The lack of strong parents left him dependent. That's how he sees society. I'm not trying to psychoanalyze but I thinks it's apparent.

Ducky's here said...

LaOT -- We are in the same fix as Europe. The banking system is hosed and BO's only fixation as a cheap Wall Street pimp has been to find a way to prop up the edifice even though the foundation is shot.

If you think this administration has had any thought of increasing social programs you should really pay attention.

That said, we have a chicken and egg problem. The one earner family has been destroyed and the pressure on middle class families increases daily. How do we get out of the hole? Kapital going to do the job?

Ed Bonderenka said...

There are many single mom's doing a fantastic job.
My wife was one. We married when her son was fifteen and he is now a CPO on a nuclear sub.
I know many others.
That said, it's not the easy row to hoe.

Law and Order Teacher said...

I think he has every intention of increasing social programs. It's as inevitable as night follows day. He and his cronies know nothing else and their bankruptcy extends not only to the banking system but their simplistic ideas for fixing it.

Even though periodically various gutless politicians try to fool people that they intend to reinvent government, they don't have the balls. Shrinking spending and therefore government is the only real remedy. Someone's ox has to be gored but the question becomes whose.

Lincoln had what he called the "Anaconda Plan." What's necessary is slowly starving government of it's addictions to spending. Kind of like a nicotine patch for spending.

Ducky's here said...

Why would a conservative view economic programs as a replacement for family?

The function of a two parent family goes way, way beyond economics and the government is not responsible for that loss and cannot replace the function.

Z said...

Bob, I personally think it's best to bring a baby into the world only in a union of marriage.

I do think there are fine mothers and fathers on their own raising good kids....I don't think it's ideal but I know it's a hard thing to do and I salute them.

I just wish more of them wouldn't do it intentionally.

Z said...

Ducky, for the very reason that so many one-parent families are in POVERTY...the gov't becomes a replacement for family finances when no dad's around or only one parent's working.
Now they're even telling our children what they have to eat in school....we don't want gov't involved in those things.

I personally wish all mothers could/would stay home and actually RAISE their children, too. But, I know that's a pipe dream in this country anymore.
We were sure better off for it.

Law and Order Teacher said...

Ducky,
Exactly. We agree.

Ducky's here said...

for the very reason that so many one-parent families are in POVERTY...the gov't becomes a replacement for family finances when no dad's around or only one parent's working.
--------------
So if the single parent were left without any help everything would be fine and the kids would grow up well nourished, well educated and secure.

Visit the planet , z.

Sam Huntington said...

Ducky, I’ve seen puddles that are deeper than you are. This topic isn’t about capitalism. It is about adults making poor decisions with long-range consequences —for themselves and their offspring.

Society doesn’t force husbands and wives into the job market. This is a personal decision made in order to increase income and material goods. I know lawyers and doctors who are upside down in housing and automobile payments. I know blue-collar workers who have taken out second and third mortgages to purchase campers and motor boats —or to pay off their ever-escalating debt only to start “charging away” all over again.

Two wage earner families don’t increase wealth, and if they succeed in increasing income, it is only a marginal benefit; it also increases their tax burden. It provides people with a false sense of security. In too many cases, people spend more than they bring home, and when one of the workers loses his or her job, the family suddenly finds themselves in very serious financial trouble.

The real casualty here is that parents are driving their children away by loading them down with expensive toys that the parents cannot afford. Fewer families today share their evening meal, which means that fewer families say grace with their children. It doesn't help when there is no father sitting at the head of the table. In essence, these parents provide a negative model for their children. People have to think about this and make proper decisions. They need to understand (1) wealth isn’t always about money, and (2) monetary wealth isn’t what you bring home, it is what you save or invest of what you bring home.

Z said...

Ducky, sorry, but you'll notice I didn't say that the single mother and child should starve.
Government, however, is not always the answer.
Thanks, I'm well ensconced on this planet; a little too well.

Sam...this is excellent "The real casualty here is that parents are driving their children away by loading them down with expensive toys that the parents cannot afford. Fewer families today share their evening meal, which means that fewer families say grace with their children. It doesn't help when there is no father sitting at the head of the table. In essence, these parents provide a negative model for their children. People have to think about this and make proper decisions. They need to understand (1) wealth isn’t always about money, and (2) monetary wealth isn’t what you bring home, it is what you save or invest of what you bring home."

We have kids being bandied between angry divorced parents and people actually think that's good for the child.
This country was SO much better off with prayer at dinner, parents who at least tried to stay together if they possibly could even if they weren't 100% "HAPPY!" all the time, when parents cared enough that GIVING TO CHILDREN meant giving of the HEART not the latest expensive pair of tennis shoes.

gad, we're so screwed up

Law and Order Teacher said...

Government is indeed a poor substitute for good families, one or two parent. The invasion of government into the lives of its citizens is feckless at best and debilitating at worst. The "social safety net" is a euphemism for liberal guilt.

I admit some aid is necessary. But it more often than not reaches a point of dependency. The extent of government social spending is a major problem in a myriad of ways. At least 15 trillion of them.

Z said...

very well said, L&O....it is a euphemism for liberal guilt.

If only we could build the churches up again to where they were doing their old wonderful job of helping.

I have to admit I get a little angry when I hear SO many church groups going outside the country, particularly to Mexico, to help, when we have such poverty HERE.

Law and Order Teacher said...

Z,
Excellent point. Why do churches feel the need to be missionaries outside the US? I think helping your neighbor should mean your next door neighbor. Of course, maybe it's not as exotic, huh?

Z said...

It always feels like it's a mini vacation for the people on the 'mission', to tell you the truth, though I know many who work really hard for the foreigners in whose countries they're helping and I certainly honor them for that.

I just think of our inner cities and wish that the poverty we have would be addressed by the church groups before they spend time, talent and money elsewhere.

Elmers Brother said...

My son is interning for an urban mission and we have supported others who work in the inner city. Its being done its just not "sexy" enough to get a lot of attention.

Always On Watch said...

Yes, it is a very big deal!

THIS article's parting words are troubling because we know things will not change...

Not in society overall, but perhaps in certain sectors of society.

I maintain that one overall reason makes most homeschooling successful: the intact family is the norm in these groups -- plus, most homeschool moms are at-home moms. Those factors DO make a difference in so many ways.

Speedy G said...

The problem with mr. ducky is that he pray's to the god of government and depracates the abilities of people of faith to make a difference and help those who find themselves as homo sacer, for whom the government makes no effort to support (ie - illegals, drug addicts, etc.).

Government needs to stick to its' own areas of responsibility, defense, interstate commerce, etc. and leave works of "charity" to the faithful. After all, we are "all" homo sacer.

Speedy G said...

ducky stands with Kalfka before the law.

Speedy G said...

...using the gatekeeper as an excuse for his own inaction.

Kid said...

There is nothing good about this.

Children need a man in the house.
Ideally, both, but given the choice of one, a man definitely.

That's all there is to it.

I've known too many kids, some that I grew up with that only had a mother and they were out of control. Everyone of them ended up screwed up in the head.

Z said...

Kid, I know one guy who never knew his father and he's the finest man I know. But there's something genetic working there and faith.
He was an only child with an alcoholic mother...he'd come home from school and she'd go to the bars all night. He raised himself.
But he became a strong Christian and now has an AMAZING wife who's gorgeous, fun and bright and four kids who are fabulous. That's an exception and they exist...

But, in general? I think bringing children into the world INTENTIONALLY with only one parent is really hard on the kid and really stupid for a healthy society, you're so right.

Kid said...

Z, it's pretty rare but it does happen. Kids rising out of the ghetto like a Phoenix.
Something in them that just does not accept their lot in life. But it sure is rare.

Kid said...

PS - I was actually born a poor black child myself. Just like Steve Martin. :)