Mr. Obama cited the need for stronger law enforcement services and resources for education, more job opportunities and other resources for communities.There are a lot of women raising children alone — or with another woman — who don't like to think that their children are missing some special "guide" or "leader" because there is no male parent figure. This is not to say that such women don't see the value of a good father, only that they find something offensive in saying that the "male figure" in particular is needed. And Obama is saying that it is so important that it left a hole in his heart:
“But we also need families to raise our children,” he said. “We need fathers to realize that responsibility doesn’t just end at conception. That doesn’t just make you a father. What makes you a man is not the ability to have a child. Any fool can have a child. That doesn’t make you a father. It’s the courage to raise a child that makes you a father.”
“I know the toll it took on me, not having a father in the house,” he continued. “The hole in your heart when you don’t have a male figure in the home who can guide you and lead you. So I resolved many years ago that it was my obligation to break the cycle — that that if I could be anything in life, I would be a good father to my children."Now, I know what he is trying to do is to push more men to be involved in their children's lives, but the way he is saying it, he is siding with traditionalists who think the male role is special, distinctive, and necessary.
ADDED: Matt Yglesias strains this out:
This one will, I expect, be a pretty big hit politically, too, since it has certain conservativish resonances about the centrality of family conditions to our social problems.Pussyfooting is so loud. You'll have to click on the link to figure out whether Matt agrees with the NYT that Obama was talking about black men.
IN THE COMMENTS:
Holdfast said:
Obviously his mom did a pretty decent job raising him...I said:
Actually, he spent a lot of the time with his grandparents, and his grandfather was the father figure. Maybe he should read Clarence Thomas's memoir ("My Grandfather's Son").Thomas, like Obama, spent much of his youth living with his married grandparents. Thomas lavishes credit on his grandfather. Perhaps Obama would say that Thomas does have a hole in his heart.
Zachary Paul Sire said:
Obama is just pandering and doing what he's "supposed" to be doing...same thing goes for him helping fill sandbags in Iowa.Palladian said:
So you're admitting that he's a phony liar? That he doesn't actually believe what he's saying? That he's just lying to the "heartland" in order to get elected and implement his anemic socialism?William said:
If this is true, then where's this "change" we've heard so much about? Or is that, as many of us suspect, just another empty political lie? If he's willing to lie and pander to the "heartland" about the need for fathers then what makes you assume that he isn't lying about all that "hope" and "change" nonsense in order to pander to urban liberals?
Wow, yesterday Obama came out in favor of bike helmets and today we note that he is in favor of fatherhood. He certainly is not afraid to take a forthright stand on the tough issues....We are all pocked with emptiness. It is what we use to fill up those empty spaces that defines us. I wonder if the Rev Wright wasn't in some way a father figure. If the abandonment by his father was the central trauma of his life, then Obama has re-enacted that trauma with the Rev Wright. And perhaps he will find some other blowhard to re-enact it with again. I think O'Neill, no stranger to childhood trauma, observed that the past is never really past. We keep revisiting the same pain, hoping to make it turn out right. And it never does.Unfairly psychoanalytical? Obama's text invites it.
Lou Minatti said:
Ya'll do realize this was Obama's Sister Souljah speech, right? The speech wasn't aimed at men who abandon their families, it was aimed at white middle-of-the-roaders, aka Reagan Democrats.Amba said:
It's not so much that men and women have different roles. Their roles are much more alike now than they used to be. It's not what they do but what they are: how they sound, how they feel, how they smell. A sense of protection and authority emanates from a man because his voice is deep and his body is solid. This is very primal. It's like the sun and the moon.This reminds me of a conversation I had recently about whether, in an egalitarian heterosexual relationship, the man should protect the woman and whether she should want the feeling of being protected.
AJ Lynch said:
Is it hard to write a book in tribute to your father after he has left a hole in your heart?I think Obama knows he failed his mother by concentrating on his father the way he did, but, to be fair, the book is not so much a "tribute" to his father as it is a search for what he missed and an expression of regret for loss. As he said in the speech at the church yesterday, he made that longing for a father central to his own life as he became the good father he did not have.
FYI - Senator Obama is a phony.
ADDED: Donald Douglas says he was "surprised" that I "ridiculed Obama's speech from a feminist perspective." Where did I ridicule him? My point is that he disrespected a point of feminist dogma. I didn't take a position on the correctness of the dogma. I just want everyone to see that he crossed feminism here. I want that noticed. He threw a bone to traditionalists, and you were so into gnawing it that you didn't notice that I was not talking about whether children need fathers.
Posts
110 comments:
You got to be kidding.
Kidding that this is politically correct feminism?
I have heard it a hundred times.
Do you ever talk to lesbians?
The tradionalists are right.
politics or feminism doesn't change reality
nough said...
All of a sudden now he's John Wayne?
Every day, I help run a womans clothing store. This is the full blown Chris Russo.
". . . the way he is saying it, he is siding with traditionalists who think the male role is special, distinctive, and necessary."
What's so awful about that? It is universally agreed that children need mothers. What is so bad about pointing out that they need fathers too? Especially since it's true.
He flip-flops from gang-tough to crybaby.
But I like him better as a crybaby because he's right. Some communities are estimated to have a 90% absentee father rate. It does hurt those communities.
Dads are very important. And because this is Father's Day, it's a good thing to talk about.
Fathers are a bridge for young men. Many studies show that that's true.
But even if it's just a matter of two adults in the house -- it represents a doubling of income.
Asian Americans have only a 2% absentee father rate. It's an enormous advantage, represented in IQ scores, in high school completion, in family income levels, in stability of every kind.
I'm proud of Obama for saying this. I don't care if he's sometimes a crybaby, or comes off as a crybaby about his childhood.
This is something that he could actually do a lot to fix. Bill Cosby is saying much the same things. Hurray for Obama!
If he kept talking like that, I might even vote for him. It shows a little sense, and even a little sense is almost unheard of at the national level.
To answer your question, when nobody calls the sports talk station WFAN, Russo starts trashing the Yankees to get the fans all riled up and calling him. That's what you do when you stick a finger in the eye of fathers on Fathers Day. Good luck with that.
You know what, I know a lot of lesbians who love their fathers. Two of whom came shopping with their partners and their dads today. It's 2008 not 1972. Jeeez.
This is smart - sure it might piss off a few ladical feminists and lesbians, but what are they going to do, vote for McCain? Get real.
Anyway, he's right at least with respect to boys, and I suspect girls as well. Kids need to be have adults of both genders as strong and pervasive role models.
As much as I diagree with Obama, I would never accuse him of being unintelligent, and I think he's also quite contemplative. Obviously his mom did a pretty decent job raising him (he was probably doomed from birth to be a socialist, but he's otherwise ok), but a the other kids had dads and he didn't.
I think this is one subject that he can speak on with some real authority and experience.
I'm saying that when 2 lesbians are raising children, they will probably be offended if you say the children will have holes in their hearts because there was no man in the house to guide and lead them.
And single mothers will often say the same thing. I would say that it depends on the man.
"Obviously his mom did a pretty decent job raising him..."
Actually, he spent a lot of the time with his grandparents, and his grandfather was the father figure. Maybe he should read Clarence Thomas's memoir ("My Grandfather's Son").
Wait. So now Obama is a lesbian?
"And single mothers will often say the same thing. I would say that it depends on the man."
Right. Which is why it's so important for a woman to choose a man carefully - a man who knows how to handle a gun and who isn't a lesbian.
Yes, lesbians will be offended. Tough titties. There is enough social science at this point on just how important the traditional male role for fathers is, particularly for boys, to more than justify any offense. No one is telling lesbians they don't have the right to raise their children, only that we need to encourage traditional father roles for men because there is a clear cultural need. At what point do we stop moving toward cultural suicide in order to not offend anyone?
The fact that there's so much propaganda emphasizing that fatherhood is important suggests that it isn't. Maybe some anthropologists/sociologists in the house could weigh in on this, but I suspect that generalized over human history and culture, fathers usually played a much smaller role in children's lives than they are pushed to do (especially by feminists) in contemporary America.
"Now, I know what he is trying to do is to push more men to be involved in their children's lives, but the way he is saying it, he is siding with traditionalists who think the male role is special, distinctive, and necessary."
Hey, no fair! It's father's day!
American Power
Hey, if Washington's Birthday and Lincoln's Birthday got turned into Presidents' Day, why can't Mother's and Father's Day be united into Parents' Day?
I was raised by a single mom and never met my "father" until I was 18 and, out of curiosity, I tracked him down with the help of a private detective (tmi?)...and after having met him I was completely underwhelmed. Point being, I'm glad I grew up with the family I grew up with and wouldn't want it any other way. Obama is just pandering and doing what he's "supposed" to be doing...same thing goes for him helping fill sandbags in Iowa.
Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Bill Bennett -- the smartest and most forceful conservative intellectuals didn't have fathers.
The Big Question is, why isn't Obama a conservative?
Is it simply that fact that everyone around him growing up was a socialist, and his dreams came from his absent socialist father?
It's a mystery that needs an answer.
But hey, a woman may do all she can to choose carefully, to really know what sort of man she is marrying to be the father of her children, the male role model, the Man of the House. Years pass, life seems good, and then who knows why but one day out the blue - bam, he's a lesbian.
Luck of the draw.
holdfast
Thank you for "ladical feminists". That's an interesting turn of phrase.
Damn, I can't believe I'm siding with Obama on this one. (Well, I was with the "whitey" tape too, but that didn't have to do with policy). He is right, and he is right to use his pulpit to say so. Tactful delivery is one thing---but if avoiding offense means withholding the truth then nobody is served.
Stanley Cavell on Kleist's _The Marquise of O_
``She accepts him back because he has answered her summons (acknowledged his fatherhood to the world - otherwise he is no father)...Accepting this, the woman will eventually accept further that he is asking for rescue from his need for perfection, as she accepts this rescue of herself from him. Thus they are one another's rejected selves, showing Moral Perfectionism to be the rescue from a false perfectionism, call it a false autonomy.''
1 - I don't understand why, if Obama supposedly has all of this hostility towards women, he would have married such a, errrm, "strong woman" as Michelle.
2 - Of course Obama is right about this.
3 - I thought it was REPUBLICANS who were supposed to be overbearing and paternalistic. Obama is going to make us work, he's not going to let us live our lives, he's going to transform us all, and he's going to tell us how to run our families. Feh. No thanks.
"There is enough social science at this point on just how important the traditional male role for fathers is, particularly for boys...."
No, there is not. What is important -- for all children -- is supportive (and/or non-conflictual) parenting.
Then again, if a child comes to believe folk-tales about the doubleplusgoodness of the heterosexual nuclear unit, yeah, that could lead to emotional distress.
P.S. It's not that I disagree that parents (mothers and fathers) ought not to abandon their children....
I'm glad he made this speech. It was politically smart as well. He's already lost the radicalized victims of Wright's ilk and the Hillary feminists, so what has he got to lose? He's going to the center, like all candidates do who want to win.
I think the lack of a father or a bad father, yes, always leaves a hole in your heart. Life does that too sometimes. Anecdote: my neice, begat from an anonymous donor, feels that hole. It would break your heart to see her adoration of her uncle, who lives unfortunately too far away to be a surrogate. Will she have a good life anyway? Sure. Still, with a hole in her heart.
"Obama is just pandering and doing what he's "supposed" to be doing...same thing goes for him helping fill sandbags in Iowa."
So you're admitting that he's a phony liar? That he doesn't actually believe what he's saying? That he's just lying to the "heartland" in order to get elected and implement his anemic socialism?
If this is true, then where's this "change" we've heard so much about? Or is that, as many of us suspect, just another empty political lie? If he's willing to lie and pander to the "heartland" about the need for fathers then what makes you assume that he isn't lying about all that "hope" and "change" nonsense in order to pander to urban liberals?
but I suspect that generalized over human history and culture, fathers usually played a much smaller role in children's lives than they are pushed to do (especially by feminists) in contemporary America.
In that notional iron age vilage, the child may have been around women, but there was in factan organized male sub-society with it's own rituals, hunting traditions, customs and initiation rights.
Today that place is taken in many fatherless homes by the Crips and Bloods.
not much progress there.
Obama is also articulating the pro-male abortion rights argument: men must have responsibilities after conception and before birth and duties follow rights so men must have rights after conception and before birth.
1. I don't think you can take a general statement that fathers need to be better parents and diminish it by pointing out an individual anecdote in which someone has been raised by a single mom (or lesbian parents) and done well.
2. The statistics relating to the children of single parents in many households are not good, and I believe that is Obama's point.
See, this article -
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=56349
Boys need good fathers. Obama is probably being sincere. I can't speak for girls.
I think it'd be safe to say that on the *whole*, boys do better with fathers than without. It's also safe to say that *some* women get caught in bad relationships with men and have to divorce to save themselvse.
There are always exceptions to the rule that are cited endlessly, both regarding the both the lack of a father figure and the harm men do to women *sometimes*.
The devil is that by saying children are better off in married couples gets everyone's Gloria Steinem riled up and swinging brickbats. You know, the old a women wihtout a man is a fish without a bicycle crap.
We're raising a whole lot more dysfunctional boys in single mother families than we are raising Obamas. This idea that raising boys to men without men around is just humor the women who think its a good idea or who are feeling guilty for not providing their boy a good male role model (and that's not an uncle/neighbor/gay friend).
It's not the "survivors" of single mother families that should be used to appraise fatherless boys, rather its the overall harm non-socialized boys inflict on society which should be considered.
No, there is not. What is important -- for all children -- is supportive (and/or non-conflictual) parenting.
Then again, if a child comes to believe folk-tales about the doubleplusgoodness of the heterosexual nuclear unit, yeah, that could lead to emotional distress.
Wow, that's a pretty definite, confident statement you just made.
You ought to read "Self Made Man: One Woman’s Journey into Manhood and Back." The author, a lesbian, disguises herself as a man for a year to try to get a feeling for the male experience. One of the her conclusions at the end of the book was that she would never, never try to raise a male child unless she had a very involved father figure to spend time with and help raise him.
I specifically remember it, because she was unequivocal about it, and I was surprised.
As a female, I myself hate the thought of being raised without a mom... I'm sure two gay guys could do a great job too, but guess what: it's not the same and no one should try to pretend it is.
I say this as someone who's not even against gay parenthood. I just think it's reckless to think it makes NO difference whatsoever.
I should add that I believe that 2 committed gay parents are possibly better for a kid than a single parent.
Trooper and I may disagree about opera. But I'm with him completely on this one.
Trooper, Chris Russo isn't the only one on radio to pull this stunt, but he is one of the best.
Althouse hasn't done too bad a job, either. Got me going after a nice Father's Day dinner with my family.
You know, for as long as I can remember, people have been trying to tell me crap that obviously isn't true. Sometimes it reflects a deeper truth that I didn't understand at the time, such as when Sister Helen in the 1st grade explained, in her lilting brogue, that the stars appearing at sunset were "God's little candles, bein' lit by the Angels."
One of the more pernicious pieces of crap, disproven by my entire life experience (at least as long as Althouse's) and by my now 15 years of fatherhood, is that the only differences between the sexes are details of plumbing.
Sorry, but the male role is indeed special, distinctive, and necessary. So is the female one. And, believe me, there are plenty of bad mothers out there to go with the bad fathers. It depends not only on the man, but the woman.
Much as the modern world wants to believe our messy, actual biological existence is infinitely malleable, and everyone should be able to do anything and everything, the fact remains that it isn't, and they can't.
If and when you're up there lightin' candles in Heaven, then, and only then will you be free of the bonds that make us male and female. Then and only then will the holes in all our hearts be mended.
In the mean time, it's my sacred duty, as a father, to make sure the hearts I helped create emerge as whole as I, a weak sinner, can help them to be. I can do no more, nor less. And neither can any man who would call himself a father.
If you have an opportunity to watch the video of the speech, some of the loudest applause comes when Sen. Obama says that the mothers need help. (mostly women cheering)
I found this speech to be one of his best. I thought he sounded very sincere.
In my first comment I obviously meant to say that you "cannot" take a general statement that fathers need to be better parents....
Editing schmediting.
"One of the her conclusions at the end of the book was that she would never, never try to raise a male child unless she had a very involved father figure to spend time with and help raise him."
Wow, she made a pretty definite, confident statement she made ... based on her n of 1.
Wow, yesterday Obama came out in favor of bike helmets and today we note that he is in favor of fatherhood. He certainly is not afraid to take a forthright stand on the tough issues....We are all pocked with emptiness. It is what we use to fill up those empty spaces that defines us. I wonder if the Rev Wright wasn't in some way a father figure. If the abandonment by his father was the central trauma of his life, then Obama has re-enacted that trauma with the Rev Wright. And perhaps he will find some other blowhard to re-enact it with again. I think O'Neill, no stranger to childhood trauma, observed that the past is never really past. We keep revisiting the same pain, hoping to make it turn out right. And it never does.
Actually, girls need fathers too. Moms and dads have different roles, and both boys and girls benefit when both are there and capably filling those roles. Can kids do well when that doesn't happen? Sometimes, sure. But on balance they do better when it does.
Ya'll do realize this was Obama's Sister Souljah speech, right? The speech wasn't aimed at men who abandon their families, it was aimed at white middle-of-the-roaders, aka Reagan Democrats.
Obviously growing up with "a hole in your heart" doesn't mean you will be a failure or an emotional cripple, it just means that you will long for something you did not have. Obama, clearly a successful man and an example of great parenting by a single woman, still feels the absense of his father. I don't think that is politically incorrect. It is just a fact and probably true for a lot of otherwise happy, well-adjusted fatherless people. The lesbian couples I know go to great lengths to assure that their children have good male role models in their lives, not because their parenting is lacking, but because it helps to develop well-rounded individuals.
Geez, I get tired of having every comment every politician makes dissected and analyzed to find offense wherever possible!
He flip-flops from gang-tough to crybaby.
Kirby Olson, you really are a jackass, aren't you?
On the main topic, Obama is completely right here. He isn't saying that single mothers or lesbian couples are evil or need to be shamed out of our society. He simply is stating that the lack of respectable father figures in many families has been damaging to our society, particularly in the black community. If you look at the various demographic factors that correlate to, and perhaps cause, crime and other social ills, one factor that jumps out is a family in which the father was neglectful or ran out on the family. (It should be noted that in the case of lesbian couples, there isn't a father who ran out on or neglects his kids, so there are probably different psychological factors to look at there, particularly if the home is a stable one.)
While it's easy to criticize him as just playing to a crowd on Father's Day, Obama did a good thing by pointing out that being a good father is an integral part of being a real man, once you have a kid. Good for him for saying that.
What a nasty Father's Day topic. I like Althouse generally, but this was pathetic.
And, as pointed out earlier, Obama was raised by his grandfather and the grandmother he ungraciously threw under that very crowded bus, not by his single mother.
I'm proud of Obama for saying this. I don't care if he's sometimes a crybaby, or comes off as a crybaby about his childhood.
This is something that he could actually do a lot to fix. Bill Cosby is saying much the same things. Hurray for Obama!
I agree. This was a proud moment and hopefully a signal that our culture is shifting away from the notion that feminist-dominated courts can view fathers as discardables, and that welfare and "strong black women" suffice to rear a boy right.
Someone discussing black gangs once said that prison was the 1st time many black youth had any meaningful interpersonal contact with adult males. They were raised in a matriarchy before that. All their care and discipline at home came from their mommas and the momma's female friend householders and under the dominant females - the black male houseguests who come and go....If problems in a family got bad, then the female social workers and counselors and female lawyers if court actions were needed - came in. At school, they saw few male teachers.
And while black male youth are worse affected by this inner-city system, females are raised in a world of predatory black males that never let the female child see that she is valued for the things Dads dote on and the things his male friends also believe in and want for their little daughters and band together to protect..No, those black females learn men want just one thing to show that they like the gals and deign them worthy.
And the boys learn the way of the world and the worth of women from the predators. They are no-good just like all the long-gone biodaddies. The mommas are meal tickets, the rest just pussy or soon to be pussy.
Thank you, Theo Boehm, for stating it exactly as it is. A perfect Fathers' Day Declaration.
If any parent who has both a son and a daughter can honestly say that it is "just the plumbing" that's different, they are deaf, blind and have no tactile sense.
My son and daughter grew up largely without a dad after my divorce. I did my best & we are all close to each other, but the "hole in their hearts" is damn real.
I could be a great mom, but I could not fill the role their dad should have taken.
That is not automatically meant to be some kind of stereotyped role. Simply by being there & being himself, he would have contributed much to them.
On the other hand, I grew up with a violent alcoholic dad, and I do understand why some kids are better off with a single mother.
I applaud Bill Cosby, Chris Rock and now Obama for telling it like it is, and encouraging ALL men to consider what it means to be a father, even if they did not have one on hand, themselves.
I know a number of young fathers who grew up without dads involved, who are now doing their best to be good dads to their own kids. They do not want their own kids to have holes in their hearts.
Sorry, folks.. it is not just a fairy tale that some people "buy into." In our society, how can kids NOT notice that the pattern usually is mom+ dad?
They may do pretty well with a substitute arrangement, but if you don't admit that any kid will miss having a mom OR a dad, you don't know kids.
"Now, I know what he is trying to do is to push more men to be involved in their children's lives, but the way he is saying it, he is siding with traditionalists who think the male role is special, distinctive, and necessary."
I can't stand Obama but on this he is correct: the male role IS special,distinctive and necessary --- AS IS THE ROLE OF TEH FEMALE! Both play important parts in the development of a well rounded child, girl or boy.
What is it with women today? Because someone points out that the father has a special role you automatically think it demeans or diminishes the special role of women in child rearing. That's a pretty big inferiority complex you women are carrying around.
Modern feminism at work.
I think it's sad that so many people need studies to recognize that good fathers are vital to a healthy family. This has been common sense to every culture around the world for thousands of years and now after 30-40 yrs of "sexual revolution" brainwashing we need studies done about it. Sad.
In a previous comment someone posted "this is 2008 not 1972", well, just because something is shiny and new it doesn't mean it's better.
John Burgess - yeah, just a typo but it reads kind of dirty.
Anyway, I think a child raised by two committed gay parents is in a better position than with a single parent (all else being equal), but that the optimal is the old school 2 parent of different genders. Obviously the quality of the individuals is a huge factor, and I would not want to ostracize anyone who is trying hard to be a good parent in those arrangements, but I would not want to incentivize single parenthood either, which is what we seem to have done. In too many cases we pay welfre to the baby mama, and then end up having to house the kid at the expense of the state for most of his natural life. This is not a winning proposition, not morally or economically. Cosby has figured it out, and Obama is at least mouthing the words. It's all fine and good for nice, white, liberals to "embrace" single motherhood, to want to make everyone feel loved etc, but guys like Cosby and Juan Williams (neither conservatives by any stretch) are telling us that it is not working out on the ground - that the 1960s "War on Poverty" had some collateral damage - the black nuclear family. I would submit that they care far more about the black community than some dilletante sociologist, and that they have a much better understanding of its problems. How about we try listening to them, even if only out of pragmatic self-interest.
Surely lesbians, gays, single mothers, and anyone ought to be able to appreciate that a family composed single-sex or single person parent(s), however loving and supportive, cannot possibly provide the children of either sex with the particular experience of how a man and a woman can live together in a loving relationship (and the little foibles and masculine-feminine compromises that make such a relationship work).
Now if all children are to be of the same gender and sexual orientation as their same-sex parents, then maybe it doesn't matter. Otherwise, lacking such experience in their upbringing, why are we surprised when kids learn their intersexual behaviors and ethics from rap and the hood?
He threw his grandmother under the bus a couple of months ago. I guess it was time he chucked his grandfather under there, too.
I'm saying that when 2 lesbians are raising children, they will probably be offended if you say the children will have holes in their hearts because there was no man in the house to guide and lead them.
(Shrug) Good thing this isn't Canada, then.
For once, I agree with Obama. Not having a father eats a hole in your heart. You envy other kids who have fathers, especially those who have a good relationship with theirs. You yearn to be able to talk about "daddy" the way they do, but you can't cuz your father isn't there. While a single mother can raise a child, it is not the same as having a father in the house. No, two women raising a child together cannot satisfy the child's heart-deep yearning for a loving daddy. No matter how much one of them might think she's the husband, she's not a man, and kids yearn for two parents of the opposite sex. I'm no fan of Obama, but on this, he's 100% right.
It's not so much that men and women have different roles. Their roles are much more alike now than they used to be. It's not what they do but what they are: how they sound, how they feel, how they smell. A sense of protection and authority emanates from a man because his voice is deep and his body is solid. This is very primal. It's like the sun and the moon.
That's not to say that it's better to grow up being abused by a cruel, cold, or drunken man than with a single mom or a gay couple. I think Beau Weston of Gruntled Center is dead on about this:
a centrist wants to promote what is best for society, tolerate what is good enough, and prevent what is harmful. This means that to define a centrist policy about anything, we need a category of social practice between the preferred and the prohibited. The natural thing to call this category is “tolerated.”
For example, historically and cross-culturally, marriage is the preferred institution in which to raise children, and incestuous unions are a prohibited way. What centrists need to be able to say is that marriage is preferred for raising children, and some other ways – my nominees would be single parenthood and same-sex unions -- are tolerated, acceptable, good enough. This is true of any social policy. The best way is still better, and social policy should provide incentives to promote the best way. But those who fall in the middle category, the good enough way, should not be penalized beyond the natural inefficiencies of doing something in a less than optimal way.
Not having a father in your life because you were the result of artificial insemination might be a different experience than not having a father in your life because he chose not to be involved in your life.
Is it hard to write a book in tribute to your father after he has left a hole in your heart?
FYI - Senator Obama is a phony.
Not having a father in your life because you were the result of artificial insemination might be a different experience than not having a father in your life because he chose not to be involved in your life.
Exactly. And that's why I suggested that the situation with families led by lesbian couples is likely to be very different than the situation with families in which there was a father, but he ran out on the family or was neglectful. Obama's comments weren't aimed at criticizing lesbians who have families (or gay men, for that matter) or at women who are single mothers. He was speaking as a man to men who aren't acting like men. And he was right to do so.
Obama, clearly a successful man and an example of great parenting by a single woman, still feels the absense of his father.
Horsehit. His mother was largely gone from his life after age 10. He was dumped on the grandparents and his mom was an infrequent visitor, preferring her exotic Indonesian lifestyle until she came down with terminal cancer. She returned to Hawaii because she felt Uncle Sam owed her free medical care.
****************
PrestoPundit said...
Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Bill Bennett -- the smartest and most forceful conservative intellectuals didn't have fathers.
Incorrect. Bill Bennett and his brother superlawyer Robert S Bennett had a father. Sowell's parents were married, his dad died before he was born. Thomas was born in marriage, the father abandoned him at age 2, then he was brought up by his grandfather.
There are cases where some black kid brought up by a single mom and a biodaddy he never saw and no men in their lives before age 18 are successful - but the deck is stacked against them.
Imagine Tiger Woods without his Dad.
Imagine what Jesse Jackson might have done with his life if he did have one..
Feminists are fond of expanding the universe of "single moms". Then pointing out that just like feminist law profs and war widows having successful kids - that a stable man as Dad or mentor is irrelevant to a kid's success. And courts should remain completely biased towards "women know best".
Divorced moms and kids, widowed women of war casualties or dad dead in an accident or disease, lesbians even lifetime civil unions are lumped in with single mommas and their children with NO men in their lives. Ignoring the social environment is entirely different and rates of dysfunction in kids is staggeringly different between kids whose in-family dads died, divorced kids, lez parents, and a 3rd gen single mom welfare mammy. And ignoring the dumped boys (and girls) who were salvaged by grand-dads or who had a male relative or close friend help with the "Dad stuff".
My Dad raised one brother's son after his parents were killed in a car crash. A friend was "mom" to two of her best friends girls for 3 years until their Dad remarried. In the military, we took turns doing "Dad stuff" with 2 girls and two boys in a family after their Dad died of cancer..
It happens a lot. And in the white Christian community and Asian culture, Jewish clans - uncles and aunts are close and do a lot of surrogate parenting..
Thank you, S Sommer, for that. I'm sorry about your divorce and the difficulties you've had as a mostly single mom. I frankly can't imagine how a single parent does it. One of my employees and several of our friends are single moms, and I've seen how far it would be beyond my abilities to be a single parent. My hat's off to you. At least my Red Sox cap is, even if Trooper is gnashing his teeth about it.
Much as I applaud Obama's statement and cherish fatherhood myself, I appreciate that not everyone can provide a two-parent home, or that all kids can grow up in one. I grew up in a two-parent household, but it was an insanely dysfunctional Hell that would have been better broken up early in my childhood.
That experience led me to the conclusion that I would never, NEVER subject any child of mine to anything like it, so I have done everything I can to help create a happy and purposeful atmosphere for my children. It's really, really hard, as I don't have to tell the parents around here.
It's made easier by the fact that we live in an area of Massachusetts that has a very low divorce rate and a large majority of stable, two-parent families. And, yes, a couple of those families are two-parent lesbian households.
One of my youngest's best friends indeed has two mommies. They're great people who seem to have done well by their kids, and I frankly don't see too much of hole in my son's friend's heart. I won't judge other people's decent and happy families for the reason of their obvious success. I think there's much to be said for the position of Beau Weston, linked above in amba's comment.
But no matter how many are married and in stable relationships, and no matter what great jobs they do with their kids, gays and lesbians, being a distinct minority, will never account for any but a tiny fraction of children.
The rest of us heteros have our own responsibilities to account for. First and foremost, if you're a father, you have an absolute duty to provide for, protect, and help raise your children.
Like a lot of things in life, it's not that complex, but it's still hard, easy to screw up, and YOU'VE GOT TO DO IT.
At least one heart, and maybe more, will depend on it.
So you're admitting that he's a phony liar?
Oh please...none of us are that naive.
I'll take his lies over McCain's.
"I'll take his lies over McCain's."
Why, because he's more "authentic"?
"He threw his grandmother under the bus a couple of months ago. I guess it was time he chucked his grandfather under there, too."
Kind of what I was thinking.
For a supposed uniter and transcender of race he certainly seems to have issues with his own white family, primarily because .... they're white.
"Then again, if a child comes to believe folk-tales about the doubleplusgoodness of the heterosexual nuclear unit, yeah, that could lead to emotional distress."
Well, the lesbo nuclear unit ain't so hot either.
Who cares if lesbians are offended that not having a Dad leaves a hole in the heart? We don't tell the truth because someone gets their feelings hurt? When a lesbian can father like a man then the concept will change. Just because a family-style works OK does not make it ideal. Lesbians are not the ones to talk to about whether a Dad is needed. Children of lesbian couples who have been raised since birth to adulthood are the proper folks to question. Ain't many of those around yet I'd wager. We'll see the fruits of this social experiment down the road.
...he is siding with traditionalists who think the male role is special, distinctive, and necessary.
And, about that, he would be correct, just as the female role is special, distinctive and necessary.
And the two roles are, imagine this, different.
What a bunch of bs. You people think that the world is a better place with all these single mothers, broken families, gay parents? If that's feminism, then feminism is no better that communism.
I'd add there are two aspects of kids not having a Dad around, that the loss does not come from just abandonment, but from absence itself, regardless of reason.
My wife teaches first grade, and my son (about to enter 5th grade) goes to her school. Whenever I go up their, whether to her class or his, the way many kids flock to me is pretty pitiful.
The same thing happens frequently at the swim club or the beach -- and, to be a grinch, its a pain in the ass sometimes. I'm there for *my* kid, not to play surrogate daddy while their *moms* sit on their asses ignoring them.
I've also been pissed off by single/divorced women in many situations (various kid parties, etc) whom I consider merely acquaintances more than "friends", who just kick back and gab with each other the whole time and presume others will watch over their kids and keep them from getting hurt. I'm tired of being the freakin' "Village."
This lazy behavior by single moms occurs not just with lower class "urban" moms, but with educated upper-middle class white women as well (usually of the more liberal persuasion.) One particular repeat offender was actually a university sociology professor.
Ann Althouse said...
I'm saying that when 2 lesbians are raising children, they will probably be offended if you say the children will have holes in their hearts because there was no man in the house to guide and lead them.
And single mothers will often say the same thing. I would say that it depends on the man.
maybe offensive to the little girls playing dress up in your college production of the vagina monologues, but not to the people out there in the real world who comprise 99% of the groups you're describing.
this isn't rocket science, and i dont know why you assume they are all idiots.
as was said above, please take your head out of 1972.
Once again, Obama is echoing the themes of the non-threatening cuddly Dr. Huxtable. I suggest to make white Americans feel more at ease that he wear Argyll sweaters:
Real men don't walk away from the babies Fri Jun 13, 12:15 AM ET
By Bill Cosby and Alvin F. Poussaint
Why do we persist in blaming the black family crisis on "unwed mothers"? True, roughly 70% of black babies are born each year to single mothers, mostly poor. One reason for the prevalence of single motherhood: Black females who used to get married when they became pregnant are no longer doing so. More than that, some black women don't want to marry the fathers of their babies because they contribute little beyond their sperm. Due to injustice and bad choices, many black men are unemployed, unemployable, or wards of the criminal justice system.
No one can speak honestly of black family hardships without addressing the issue of the estrangement of "unwed fathers" from their children. Real men do not walk away from the mothers of their babies. A father is expected to help take care of his children, but some of these men have trouble taking care of themselves. The more socially impotent black men are feeling, the more they will rely on sexual conquests to prove their manliness. But having drive-by babies whom they abandon only reflects their insecurity.
The situation is by no means hopeless. Once black men claim their children and feel the warmth of a hug, they will begin to understand what fatherhood is all about. Many young men have been struggling with the challenges that come with greater father involvement. They simply do not know how to be fathers. Many have never seen a real father in action. Later, they do not realize the importance of fathers in a child's healthy development, or the fact that unemployed, separated and unwed fathers can still contribute significantly to their children's well-being.
It's mainly the chocolate people.
"Bad blood leads the bad blood"
There is no coming back for those people.
There are a lot of women raising children alone — or with another woman — who don't like to think that their children are missing some special "guide" or "leader" because there is no male parent figure.
...and? People are offended about a lot of things. That doesn't make them any less true.
Male role models (for boys) and male model relationships (also to boys but especially to girls) are unequivocally an important part of a child's development.
Just like anything other important thing, you can grow up without it. You can be a fully functioning human being without a father, or a mother, or enough food, or enough money, or an eduction.
But being outraged at the priggishness of "education traditionalists" doesn't change the fact that your kid can't read.
I'm surprised. Althouse usually doesn't settle on the feel-good, inclusive, counter-factual position. Parents believing - often quite rightly - that they've done the best they've been able for their kid doesn't change the broad reality of the calamities more likely to befall both genders when they grow up without a father. Certainly such feel-goodism shouldn't dictate what politicians advocate when they choose to address the subject.
Cheers to Obama. Though I hate to say that to such obvious pandering.
I am not voting for Obama. But, I agree with 100% on this one. Sad thing is though, once the P.C. left gets to him, you'll never hear anything like this from him again. That is a big problem with him.
Deb at 7:24 PM demonstrated deep confusion over what is Newspeak. Hint: It's her own jabber about "non-conflictual parenting," "heterosexual nuclear unit," and -- worst of all -- "male role for fathers" that is the Newspeak. The stuff that Deb whines is "traditional" is what is being discussed in real, honest English. (Sheesh!)
All the yammering, direct or implied, about replacing fathers with a mere father figure is hugely mistaken. The whole concept of the "father figure" is a collectivist fantasy based on the falsehood that there is such a thing as "men" that can be divided up into fundamentally undifferentiated lumps, all interchangeable.
Further, if Barak Obama was honestly concerned about the millions of American children separated from their fathers, he'd have spoken out clearly and distinctly about the phenomenon of fathers being pushed out of families. But that would have struck at the guilty consciences of millions of Debs and therefore been doubleplusungood crimethink -- to put it in Deb's fave lingo.
Deb at 7:24 PM demonstrated deep confusion over what is Newspeak. Hint: It's her own jabber about "non-conflictual parenting," "heterosexual nuclear unit," and -- worst of all -- "male role for fathers" that is the Newspeak. The stuff that Deb whines is "traditional" is what is being discussed in real, honest English. (Sheesh!)
All the yammering, direct or implied, about replacing fathers with a mere father figure is hugely mistaken. The whole concept of the "father figure" is a collectivist fantasy based on the falsehood that there is such a thing as "men" that can be divided up into fundamentally undifferentiated lumps, all interchangeable.
Further, if Barak Obama was honestly concerned about the millions of American children separated from their fathers, he'd have spoken out clearly and distinctly about the phenomenon of fathers being pushed out of families. But that would have struck at the guilty consciences of millions of politically correct feminists, their fellow travellers, useful idiots, and (all too probably) Deb as well, and therefore been declared a heresy against PC (or doubleplusungood crimethink -- to put it in Deb's fave lingo).
I submit that this Feminist attempt to denigrate fatherhood is a Big Lie right out of a previous century.
Phooey on that.
One method that will be used by the left to create more equality in the face of the push back against affirmative action will be to discriminate against kids who come from two parent families. You can do this by giving preferences to kids who come from single parent homes. It's obvious that kids with two parents will be better off in total than those without two parents. Since you can't replace a parent with the government, why not discriminate. It's only fair....
@Sloanasaurus:
"...discriminate. It's only fair...."
Oh, yes! Preach that Politically Correct discrimination, brother! It's every bit as ugly as old-school racism, only it has the academic air of acceptability! Woo hoo...
As a man that was raised without a father, I can well understand what Obama is saying. Growing up, I deeply missed having a father. The lack of a father in my life was one reason I took my parenting responsibilities so seriously.
Overall, I agree with his point, even while acknowledging that it is very possible for a young boy to grwo into a responsible man without a father figure. Just because chldren can grow up well without a father does not mean the absense of one is ideal, or even neutral.
I'm not an Obama supporter, but I thought this was a great speech. And I could care less if, as Anne says, that some lesbians might be offended. I'll start worrying about their feelings when they start worrying about mine.
Ann writes:
"There are a lot of women raising children alone — or with another woman — who don't like to think that their children are missing some special "guide" or "leader" because there is no male parent figure. "
They might not like to think so, but in my own life it seems obviously true, maybe especially for sons. Mothers cannot show them what it is to be a man. I'm for McCain, so I'd be happy to hear that women were disaffected from BHO, but it seems weird to attack him for saying things that are so obviously true. Fatherless boys long for a father figure. Don't you know that?
My dad developed heart disease when I was 6, and died of it when I was 14. I was mostly raised by my mom, with some help from her 4 older sisters. My heart is full of gratitude to the women who raised me, but their kindness and dedication cannot fill the hole in the life of a fatherless boy. That's just how it is.
I've been blessed to raise two children, now 22 and 25. There are things I can do for them that their mom cannot. When they come to me for help, I realize how young and unformed I was when my own Dad died. In my experience, boys rebel and struggle against their fathers, they measure themselves against them, and work to win their respect. No matter what a mother does, her son is not going to grow up to be a woman.
In my youth, most of my close friends were like me, boys without fathers through death or divorce. My best friend's dad died when he was 13. My wife says both of us have been looking for father figures all our lives.
By the way, would it be even worthy of comment if someone said the same thing about mom's? Have you never heard the song
"Motherless child"?
Well, its not nearly as intense for fatherless children, but its still real, whether people like to hear it or not.
It was Faulkner who said, "The past is not dead. In fact, it's not even past." FWIW.
Best Althouse thread ever.
I can't understand why Obama should care what the lesbians think of his speech. What percent is the lesbian vote (1%?) and how many would switch to McCain over the fact that Obama said that dads are important to the black community, too?
Outside of academia, and especially in the churches, you hear a lot about the importance of the father, and of the Father.
Of course, many in the far left want to get rid of the gender of God, too, saying that it doesn't matter, and they suggest neutering the Trinity to make it more palatable to the same constituency that thinks dads should be excised.
IT's an interesting problem within Obama's demographics -- Reverend WRight is staunchly against homosexuality, I seem to recall.
And there are no gay bars in Harlem.
Remarkable, that on the day California begins issuing licenses for gay marriage, Obama stands up to criticize nontraditional families as damaging to children.
Talk about a tin ear to some of his most vociferous supporters.
This, after last week dropping the bomb of a new 15% income tax (including employer contribution, as all economists do) on the San Francisco salon crowds who all earn $250,000/year plus. With rhetoric he doesn't really even consider this an income tax increase, neither would be the expiration of the Bush cuts, in Obama's view. So his rhetoric suggests even higher rates are coming. All hail a return to Carter levels of taxation!
What's next, faux advocacy of nuclear power?
If his supporters wink and nod through all this, they must believe him the most craven of politicians, willing to say anything to get elected.
There is absolutely no way a boy child can grow up and develop normally in an environment where the principal "adults" are two radical feminists who believe that men are superfluous. Moving on...
As a male who grew up in a single parent home (mother; parents divorced when I was about two), I can say based on my own experiences (and a lot of therapy) that no woman can provide all the necessary parental elements of a two-person heterosexual home, no matter how well-intentioned. This is a biological and social impossibility, and should not be considered a criticism - nor should a single mom, or dad, feel any guilt about the situation so long as they ensure every child gets some healthy exposure to same-sex adults.
Children need appropriate, positive role models. Little Johnny won't be appreciative later in life when he discovers that having adopted many of his attitudes and behavioral traits from a bitter woman (or women) who despised and denegrated men may not have been the best developmental strategy.
I don't know how you can possibly watch this speech and say that Obama is lying. Sorry - but Palladian is a complete tool.
P.Rich - Rather than just spew your bigotry, care to point to one iota of evidence that backs up your statements.
You can't.
Every single study that has ever been done of gay parents have shown that their children are just as healthy and well-adjusted as kids raised by straight parents.
And it is Obvious that Obama was speaking to black heterosexual fathers who have abdicated their responsibility.
If this thread is read in Canada, we'll all go to jail. (Hi Canada! Go to hell, willya?)
What strange times we live in, when a Presidential candidate says something so innocuous seesm a near scandal, whereas in prior generations saying something so obvious would have made him appear to be quite stupid, as if declaring that the sun shines and day is followed by night.
But here we are, when dismay at the rapid decline in the quality of childhood -or even mentioning that fathers might possibly somehow maybe perhaps be a little maybe needed- is considered daring or even deserving rebuke.
The only study that will finally 'prove' the utility of a two parent household, man and woman, being once again shown the best approach to childraising will be in history books, that autopsy detailing the fall of the American empire. Its peak will be missed like the Romans were.
And still Rousseau's followers will argue we do not need parents -it is instead the family itself that destroys us. And another round of self-immolation will start.
Of course I overspeak. Everything's fine; worry not. With the PC math, one is as good as two. Hell, zero is as good as one. Who needs parents, anyway? Are you daring to criticize foster kids and runaways? Do they not succeed as well? Carry on. All is well.
Terence seems like a perfectly normal kid.
Perhaps Pogo or P.Rich can tell us which father of Terence, Bas or Diederik, they would dispose of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qf0puHJ-KM
Profound evidence, dtl, as usual. Geez, what a trump card. I hardly know how to respond.
No need to bother, you'll say something nasty soon enough to entirely discredit your input. Again.
Well Pogo, as someone like you who teaches their kids to call gay people homos and faggots - it's obvious that if anyone shouldn't be breeding - it's you.
You think Terrence is going to cause the downfall of civiliztion. You're a fool.
I'm still waiting for Pogo to tell us which of Terence's fathers he'd remove. Pogo doesn't believe gay marriage should be legal. So if it should be banned, which father goes? Diederik? Bas? Or both?
That should read "gay adoption" above instead of "gay marriage".
Yes - so much harder to make bigoted remarks when confronted with real people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qf0puHJ-KM
P.Rich has already said that Terrence can't possibly be normal.
Like the woman says, Obama's talk here is cheap, and he deserves no credit for it unless he's willing to back it up.
As for studies on gay parents, that would be exactly zero studies that can be taken seriously, because of small sample spaces, and not enough data.
And I'll just add that The Netherlands is about 1000 times better than America.
Oops. A year later and Terence still seems normal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuFyMaJHIv8
The Netherlands is about 1000 times better than America.
Heh. Freakin' hilarious.
No gay bashing going on there in that Euro wonderland, is there?
Nope, no gay bashing at all.
"May 1, 2008
Amsterdam
On Rembrandt Square in Amsterdam about ten young guys of immigrant background assaulted a participant of a gay fashion show on Queen’s Day. The victim got a broken nose.
The model participated in a fashion show that was precisely organized to promote tolerance towards homosexuals. When model Mike du Pree made his second round, he got dragged from the catwalk, indecently palpated and threatened with violence."
So which father goes? Seems like the Muslim "youths" in the Netherlands will be making that decision soon enough. Let me know how it turns out.
Like the woman says, Obama's talk here is cheap, and he deserves no credit for it unless he's willing to back it up.
I couldn't figure out how Obama's deeds did not match his words encouraging men to shoulder their paternal responsibilities, so I followed the links to something called an opportunity scholarship program. How dare he deny others the scholarships he obtained, thought I.
The bottom line, however: Apparently Obama has not rushed to support school vouchers for DC kids.
I didn't take a position on the correctness of the dogma. I just want everyone to see that he crossed feminism here. I want that noticed. He threw a bone to traditionalists, and you were so into gnawing it that you didn't notice that I was not talking about whether children need fathers.
Oh, we got it all right. But I'm not interested in dogma, feminist or otherwise. That's why I gnawed with my pro-fatherhood exhortations rather than ruminate about how Obama has wandered into apostasy.
The feminists who would be offended by his remarks may be a majority of certain elite categories of women, and they could be important to Obama as leaders and opinion-makers among his coalition. I could be wrong, but I think they would be vastly outnumbered by people—voters and small-time contributors—who would agree with Obama's common-sense statement, and find it refreshing and heartening that someone with his background and politics would make it.
Lose a few. Win some more. Call him a phony or a cynical liar, but Obama is a politician who is attempting to attract votes, and, frankly, who cares if he throws a few dogmatic feminists under the bus? I have always supported most of the feminist agenda, but those who find Obama's statement offensive can buzz off. Hope that's polite enough.
As I said upthread, the arguments about gay adoption or lesbian couples raising children are irrelevant. I'm sure many do a fine job, probably as least as well as traditional families. My own experience with my sons' friends raised in such families points to this.
Kids from these situations will always be a tiny minority, however, and nothing for those concerned with public policy or anybody else to worry about.
Obama has done a service, both to his potential Black audience and to the society as a whole, to remind us of the importance of fathers. Yes, his talk is cheap. Should that surprise us? But Pogo is right that in a normal world it should seem ho-hum innocuous.
Perhaps this should be taken as an early indication that Obama is running as the Not Insane candidate.
Next up: Activists scandalized by shocking statements about Motherhood and Apple Pie.
And I'll just add that The Netherlands is about 1000 times better than America.
For any gay person to say that reveals profound ignorance of world events. "Downtown" lad, you're quite provincial, in your own way.
"Apparently Obama has not rushed to support school vouchers for DC kids."
And he won't, because there is absolutely nothing new about Obama. He's McGovern in black face with big ears, brought up in the Chicago political machine, and firmly owned by the unions.
Hmmm. I think I just insulted George McGovern -- like I thought I'd ever say that.
"Every single study that has ever been done of gay parents have shown that their children are just as healthy and well-adjusted as kids raised by straight parents."
I’m not surprised, considering that, in the social sciences where almost all of these studies are published, it is career suicide to publish a study showing a difference between children of gay parents and children of hetero parents.
"Yes - so much harder to make bigoted remarks when confronted with real people."
Yes - so much easier to argue when you're using a cute kid in a youtube video. Cherry-picking videos off youtube.com is not an argument and neither is knee-jerk accusations of bigotry and "homophobia".
Whenever people have set their minds to criticize somebody, they will always find some basis to do it, no matter how slight or ridiculous. It doesn't make it any more correct or appropriate, or compelling -- quite the opposite.
Don't you all have something more worthwhile to do with your time. Sheesh.
Both Parents are needed in the home. However right now he have alot of fatherless Families so that's what Obama was talking about. Father's are needed, just like mother's are needed. If there was a epidemic of abstance mother's I'm sure he'd would've given the speech on Mother's Day about Mother's. For I record I do not support Obama. I'm voting for McCain, but he's right on this issue. Although it doesn't take much courage to get up ans state the obvious.
www.thenewconservatives.blogspot.com
Post a Comment