The Consequences of Rotten Government, Rotten Post-Modernism and Rotten Parenting
Monday, August 18th, 2008How dare we judge a woman who has had 9 children by five men, who lives on welfare, takes the kids to some 3rd world country, leaves one 15 year old daughter in the care of an old guy and the daughter winds up dead? In an article about how bad it is to be a British kid:
What explains the nonjudgmental attitude among elites? The reluctance to criticize Fiona MacKeown might be an expression of sympathy for someone in the throes of grief: however foolishly (or worse) she behaved, she certainly did not deserve the murder of her daughter. Furthermore, the Guardian and Observer journalists might argue, we do not know enough about the details of her life to criticize her fairly. Perhaps she is a good mother in most respects; perhaps her children, apart from the drug addict and the murdered Scarlett, are happy, and will lead lives of fulfillment and achievement. After all, no style of upbringing guarantees success or, for that matter, failure; and therefore we should suspend judgment about her.
I suspect, however, that the main consideration inhibiting elite criticism of MacKeown is that passing judgment would call into question the shibboleths of liberal social policy for the last 50 or 60 years—beliefs that give their proponents a strong sense of moral superiority. It would be to entertain the heretical thought that family structure might matter after all, along with such qualities as self-restraint and self-respect; and that welfare dependency is unjust to those who pay for it and disastrous for those who wind up trapped in it.
Theodore Darlymple concludes:
The British government thus pursues social welfare policies that encourage the creation of households like the Matthews’, and then seeks, via yet more welfare spending, to reduce the harm done to children in them. But was the Matthews household poor, in any but an artificial sense? At the time of Shannon’s current stepfather’s arrest, the household income was $72,000; it lived free of rent and local taxes, and it boasted three computers and a large plasma-screen television. Would another $5,000 or $10,000 or $20,000 have made any difference?
A system of perverse incentives in a culture of undiscriminating materialism, where the main freedom is freedom from legal, financial, ethical, or social consequences, makes childhood in Britain a torment both for many of those who live it and those who observe it. Yet the British government will do anything but address the problem, or that part of the problem that is its duty to address: the state-encouraged breakdown of the family. If one were a Marxist, one might see in this refusal the self-interest of the state-employee class: social problems, after all, are their raison d’être.
So children in Britain suffer from emotional lack and material indulgence. This is a deadly combination. Not only that, but the elites refuse to hold the parents responsible for this disastrous mix. Expecting parents to work, or women to stop at one or two men, etc. is simply not done because it would call into question liberal policies and ethics (or lack thereof). It pays to be irresponsible and reckless. It pays in America, too.
There is a good way to change this bad behavior. Stop underwriting it with tax-payer dollars. Remove the incentive to live licentiously and reinforce the behavior that’s desired. Part of me would also like to punish parents who have rotten kids. I know that’s not always fair. Still, in my short time on this earth, I have yet to see “bad seeds”, but I have seen loads of bad parents. And they always seem shocked when their precious offspring become Satan’s foot soldiers.
And another thing: being a single parent is no excuse. Michael Phelps was raised my his mom. He and his sisters turned out fantastic–they are a credit to her dedication. But she worked and she was committed to something she loved, education, and they learned by her example. Even in less-than-ideal circumstances, children can succeed. But someone has to care.
It’s time to throw out the nonjudgmental, post-modern nonsense that there are no absolutes and no ideals. It is time to judge and heap scorn upon the parents who produce these rotten kids. It is also time to stop reinforcing bad behavior of the parents. Children deserve better. And when children are deprived of what they really need, society ends up paying a steep price.
H/T Instapundit
Cross-posted at RightWingNews.com
Drowning Prevention
Wednesday, August 13th, 2008A relative enrolled their child in a drowning prevention class. She is five months old and can float now and save herself. Go watch this video–as a parent, it is absolutely frightening to watch.
I have mixed emotions. On the one hand, of course children should be taught to swim as young as possible. It’s a non-negotiable at my house, not only because we have a pool, but because I just believe that all children should know how to swim, and at a young age. They also need to know how to rescue someone else because so many children drown trying to save a friend or sibling.
Still, does training like this give parents and families a false sense of security. The child in the video was clearly fatiguing. The training buys a parent precious minutes, but does it make tragic events more likely because parents or care-takers are less vigilant?
Cross-posted at RightWingNews.com
Fathers Be Good To Your Daughters
Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008I say advertising works. Watch this:
I believe that changing the channel is a choice. Walking by the magazine rack with eyes covered is a choice. But, come on! Advertisers pay big bucks because it works.
And so, our girls are inundated with messages about looks, sluttiness, superficiality and meanness and they grow up either trying to be like Sarah Jessica Parker’s Sex and The City character or giving up and watching it on TV and reading romance novels wishing they could be her.
I think the answer is men.
A girl whose father supports her accomplishments, her inner beauty and her unique qualities will go further to negate the messages than anything else. Like Rachel Lucas pointed out, the irony of the bitchy women that men are stumbling across in their dating experiences, is that a man’s influence on a little girl helped create that woman. And that includes the men who cede parenting to their wives or ex-wives.
Men, make sure to have a relationship with your daughters. You are the difference. She will relate to all men based on her relationship with you. If you’re unhappy with the state of femaledom these days, make a difference for the future.
Fathers, be good to your daughters.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News
Consenting Adults
Monday, July 14th, 2008
This woman consented at 18, no problem:
Full disclosure (or is it oversharing?): I entered into a relationship with an older man when I was 18. I knew what I was doing, and frankly, I would have known what I was doing at 17 or at 16. But since this wasn’t a Romeo and Juliet situation (i.e., we weren’t just a couple years apart in age), it would’ve been criminal to get together any earlier. To which I say, get off my back, government!
These laws are very culture- and century-specific. What we call May-December now would’ve been called June-September not too long ago. Not everyone’s sexual desires fit neatly into the particular mores of the time they live in.
Not long ago, I met a married couple, four kids in, who had met when he was in his late-20s and she was 16. They were still going. She said, “Yeah, we did everything wrong” and she grinned.
Well. There is no question in my mind that some sixteen year old girls know what they’re doing, but the laws aren’t put there for some girls and boys–they are for everyone. And for every Lolita who seemed self-aware at 14, there are ten who still possess childlike innocence.
Lowering the age of consent endangers these children. And even the mature, aware girls don’t know what they don’t know. It won’t be until they’re older, that they get the creepiness factor. In all their horny, nubile-nature they won’t get it now. but they will get it later. Maybe. Or maybe, they’ll be happily married.
Either way, I prefer the law to be conservative and let families make exceptions than the other way around. Young people will be pushed into the world unprotected soon enough.
H/T Instapundit
Cross-posted at Right Wing News
