I'm compelled by Professor's Rahe's essay to say a few words about fatherhood. There's a vast difference between being merely male, or even manly, and being a father. Male describes the basic package so to speak, standard equipment, like the base model on a dealer's lot. And base it is in more than one sense of the word. The concept of manliness varies by culture, so it's something less than a universal barometer. But fatherhood is universal. Marriage is the mechanism by which otherwise unsocialized males are made to provide for their progeny.
Allow me to provide you an insight or two from my current post as an elementary school teacher. Small children know the sound of the mother's voice. The vocal range of the female when dealing with children modulates on an incredible scale. She has different voices for nurturing, comfort, encouragement, admonition, and discipline. The male voice by contrast is monotone. Children recognize this, too, and with it comes a realization. The male voice is final and authoritative. Little kids know the voice of discipline when they hear it.
It takes a mother and a father to raise a child properly. Any variation on the theme is only second best. I'll grant you that a foster child raised by a committed lesbian couple, for example, might be better than an abusive household. But it's still second best. The ideal which social conservatives should insist on is a mother and father united in marriage. Mom nurtures. Dad provides the discipline. When has it ever been different? Don't bother me with arguments about strong mothers. Such women are only strong because their mates are weak or otherwise absent. And that brings us to the subject of bastardy.
"Bastardy" is a cruel word. Why should the innocent bear a stigma? Well, they shouldn't, but the mother should. Before the days of birth control and easy access to abortion women suffered the consequences and the social stigma of birth out of wedlock. Allow me to be blunt: it was reason enough in prior years for women to keep their knees together until they bonded with a committed male, someone who might actually become a father in practice rather than simply a sperm donor. Today we reap the consequences of our folly.
We know by every statistic we have that fatherless boys are more likely to become life's losers. In fact, we have the statistics through two world wars about the affects of absent fathers on boys. In my youth "kids at risk" were known as juvenile delinquents. My father's generation enjoyed the virtue of clarity. Cultural norms have changed; the affects of bastardy have not. It's a loser's gambit.
Modern feminism bears a great deal of blame for the current state of affairs. Men are promiscuous by nature (ask an honest gay man if you can find one who survived the AIDS epidemic), but women are not. To suggest otherwise is foolish. Women are nest builders. Domesticity requires a place and a provider. And children require a mother and a father. The denigration of fatherhood, an absolutely essential role in raising children, can only result in the rending of our societal fabric. As goes the family, so goes the nation.
- Comment (111)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Bastardy!
I cannot add or detract from Yer post.
I've been expressing the same ideas for years now.
Spot on!
Jan '11
Re: Bastardy!
Excellent post. This alone is worth $3.47, the rest of the month is free.
Feb '11
Re: Bastardy!
Succinct and concise. I fear however you'll find few takers for your thesis---the left has too much invested in gender-leveling and equilibration to turn back now, no matter the horrific outcomes. And what about this: "If conservatives like you were only in favor of gay marriage, then the stigma of homosexuality could be finally and completely extirpated and men could settle together in peace and honor like other couples."
Feb '11
Re: Bastardy!
Traditional marriage is not just what is best for raising children it also has a civilizing effect on men. Men are not just promiscuous by nature, we are lazy, crude, unkempt, unambitious, and often cruel. Many times the only reason that changes is because of women.
The quality of manhood in society is largely determined by what women demand of men. If they require a man to be a gentleman, have a livelihood, and make a commitment (get married) before they will agree to have sex, then that is the kind of man you will see. If not, you get men who are much more irresponsible and much less productive.
Is that notion sexist? Maybe. But, unfortunately, when it comes to reproduction, the facts of life are sexist.
Jun '10
Re: Bastardy!
I'm okay with domestic partnerships for homosexual couples. Any two consenting adults should be able to enter into any kind of legal arrangement they wish. If said couple can find a church to marry them, then it's none of the government's business. I would like to see in exchange a recognition that the optimum situation for raising children is a mother and father bonded in marriage. Should homosexual couples be able to adopt children? Perhaps. I know such households. They do provide a refuge from abuse. But I regard such arrangements as second best.
Jun '10
Re: Bastardy!
"Don't bother me with arguments about strong mothers. Such women are only strong because their mates are weak or otherwise absent."
This statement just ruins your argument for me. Sorry, but stong women and men are attracted to each other. No real man wants a milquetoast wfe. Only a weak man needing someone to dominate would find that desirable. Strong women seek stong, capable men as mates, and those are the healthiest marriages with the most stable and well-cared for children.
Jun '10
Re: Bastardy!
StickerShock: "Don't bother me with arguments about strong mothers. Such women are only strong because their mates are weak or otherwise absent."
This statement just ruins your argument for me. Sorry, but stong women and men are attracted to each other. No real man wants a milquetoast wfe. Only a weak man needing someone to dominate would find that desirable. Strong women seek stong, capable men as mates, and those are the healthiest marriages with the most stable and well-cared for children. · Mar 3 at 5:30am
My statement was meant to mean that absent a strong man in the household, women are often forced to become strong. Examine the female dominated households in black, inner-city neighborhoods and you understand the point.
Jun '10
Re: Bastardy!
"Mom nurtures. Dad provides the discipline. When has it ever been different? "
It's always been different in healthy relationships. It would be a really dysfunctional two parent household if each parent were not providing both discipline & nurturing when called for.
If mom can't provide discipline, she's not fulfilling a big part of her role. Particularly in a more traditional home where dad is out working countless hours while she maintains the home.
Dads need to nurture, too. The style, of course, is a masculine one. But they still need to nurture or they will be remembered by their kids as cold and unfeeling.
Feb '11
Re: Bastardy!
StickerShock: "Don't bother me with arguments about strong mothers. Such women are only strong because their mates are weak or otherwise absent."
This statement just ruins your argument for me. Sorry, but stong women and men are attracted to each other. No real man wants a milquetoast wfe. Only a weak man needing someone to dominate would find that desirable. Strong women seek stong, capable men as mates, and those are the healthiest marriages with the most stable and well-cared for children. · Mar 3 at 5:30am
As a self-described strong chick, I totally love having a strong husband. He supports me, but also understands that at least half of my strength comes from knowing he has got my back. I don't stand alone, trying to shelter myself and my chickadees in my own wonderfulness, I have him to lean on.
Jun '10
Re: Bastardy!
Exactly, Mama Toad. A stong woman would be repulsed by a weak man. If you can't lean on each other as you keep the family running and the kids raised well, often shouldering responsibility for both discipline and nurturing, what kind of marriage is that?
Sep '10
Re: Bastardy!
Benjamin Finlay: Traditional marriage is not just what is best for raising children it also has a civilizing effect on men. Men are not just promiscuous by nature, we are lazy, crude, unkempt, unambitious, and often cruel. Many times the only reason that changes is because of women.
· Mar 2 at 7:43pm
I beg your pardon. Speak for yourself, Benbo. I am not lazy, unkept, unambitious, or cruel. (OK, sometimes crude, but usually just for the shock/humor effect).
Back to the main point--how do we make the deserting/absent male be accountable for his actions, and make females having bastards shameful again? Totally eliminating the entire entitlement state in the first instance and (?) what in the second? The perverse incentives are pretty firmly in place these days.
Jan '11
Re: Bastardy!
My understanding is that the socially-conservative position is that heterosexual, married couples have a huge advantage in raising children (for all the reasons you described), not that other family structures are incapable of it. As such, it makes sense to encourage traditional families as an ideal and to give them preference -- perhaps a large one -- over others in adoption. Am I off the reservation here?
I'm rather amazed, though, at your implication that a child might be better placed in an abusive home than in one with lesbian mothers. That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me.
Edited on Mar 3, 2011 at 10:02amMay '10
Re: Bastardy!
Wow. That's a pretty tough line you draw there ~Paules. Your post doesn't mention -- and I can't recall -- whether you are, in fact, a father.
Parenting is hell-hard and many days it feels as though I get it far more wrong than right. As a parent, I can't conceive of how you could divide the child-rearing responsibility so evenly, like some 50's sit-com.
Rather in our household, both parents perform both roles.With the discipline and nurturing far more complex and varied based on the age and sex and personalities of our children than your post allows.
I think you are trying to make the point that traditional families and traditional roles serve some useful purpose and are threatened and I suppose the idea has some merit on the margin, particularly when compared to extremes.
But I would say otherwise your argument is unpersuasive. On single-parent households the data is compelling -- that is not a great model. But as for the rest of it: same-sex parent households and wimpy-dad, ball-busting mom families? I would have to say that there is simply no objective evidence to support your bias.
Jul '10
Re: Bastardy!
The stigma of bastardy was a useful cautionary example of the concept that sin has consequences. It branded not only the child, but the mother and her extended family.
Of course, once the quaint concept of sin went out of style, bastardy lost much of its sting.
But it wasn't until the modern welfare state provided positive economic benefits for bearing children out of wedlock that the production of bastards became a thriving growth industry. Compassionate, perhaps. But suicidal, definitely.
Re: Bastardy!
I enjoyed this very much, and I must say that -- so far -- I do not find parenting all that hard. I have not yet been confronted, however, with a teenage daughter.
Dec '10
Re: Bastardy!
Are people reading too deep into Paules' piece? Or perhaps not deep enough.
Trace and Stickershock, I think what Paules is trying to say is that men and women--at the 30,000 foot level--fill different roles in the family. The mother is--usually--the one who nurtures and cares for the family, and the father--usually--provides and protects for the family. Both play an essential role.
The problem occurs when one person has to play both roles at the same time. The effect is never as good, I think we can all agree on that.
Of course there will be specific examples that prove Paules' argument wrong, but that's not the point. His point--if I'm getting this right--is that there are certain natural and physical reasons why men fit some roles and women others. Also, there are certain societal norms that--usually--lead to a happy, healthy family (chastity, morals etc.)
I don't think his point is that you have to fit the exact model he shows, just that you're more likely to have a good family if you do.
Did I get that right, Paules?
Cheers
Jul '10
Re: Bastardy!
On what planet?
There's this term, perhaps you are familiar: "[redacted] whipped." There are plenty of strong women around weak men. I think there's a post about how men are becoming weaker in Western Civilization right here.
It is always dangerous to conflate your own experience with human nature.
Edited on Mar 3, 2011 at 12:50pmDec '10
Re: Bastardy!
Actually there really are no data one way or the other. The studies are focused almost exclusively on hetero married couples and single parent famillies. From a cognitive stand point, one can say neither yea or nay to any family structure other than traditional or single parent. Concerning those two, the difference is obvious.
Edited on Mar 3, 2011 at 10:33amRe: Bastardy!
I'm glad this was main-feeded. I read it yesterday, had lots of thoughts, none quite coherent enough to write as a comment. It's very interesting and provocative, Paules.
I tend to side with Trace on this, however.
This line, in particular, struck me as a bit ... off:
"Mom nurtures. Dad provides the discipline. When has it ever been different? Don't bother me with arguments about strong mothers. Such women are only strong because their mates are weak or otherwise absent."
In our family, which is very happy and in which both mom and dad feel fulfilled, mom and dad share all duties. No way is my mate weak or (ever) absent, but I often provide the discipline. My husband, often, has to nurture for any one of several complex reasons.
And, oh yes, Trace, you are spot on. The job totally kicks both of our [expletive]s. Hard and exhausting. Beyond words. Lucky that it all happens in the confines of a very loving house.
Dec '10
Re: Bastardy!
Trace Urdan:
I think you are trying to make the point that traditional families and traditional roles serve some useful purpose...
Now why would anyone think that?
Or that?
But apparently you are not really convinced.
Only on the margin?
I get it. You see little use for and little of value in traditional families and roles.
Interesting. I am open minded about the notion that non-tradtional families and roles might serve some useful purpose and may have some merit on the margins.