Wintery Knight

…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

Ann Coulter: Casey Anthony is the single mom of the year!

She doesn't change her views in order to be liked

In her latest article, Ann Coulter makes my opposition to single motherhood look moderate and respectful. (H/T Neil Simpson)

Excerpt:

As I described in my last book, “Guilty,” the leading cause of all social pathologies is single motherhood. One way or another, Casey Anthony’s refusal to give up Caylee for adoption was going to cost society — and cost Caylee.

The statistics are so jaw-dropping that not giving up an illegitimate child for adoption ought to be considered child abuse.

Various studies have shown that children raised by a single mother comprise about 70 percent of juvenile murderers, delinquents, teenaged mothers, drug abusers, dropouts, suicides and runaways. Imagine an America with 70 percent fewer of these social disorders and you will see what liberals’ destruction of marriage has wrought.

A 1990 study by the (liberal) Progressive Policy Institute showed that, after controlling for single motherhood, the difference in black and white crime rates disappeared.

[…]We could wipe out chronic poverty in America tomorrow… if only women would get married before having children or give up their illegitimate kids for adoption.And yet, between 1979 and 2003, we went from about 600,000 babies being born out of wedlock, with about a quarter of them put up for adoption, to 1.5 million illegitimate births with fewer than 1 percent of them (14,000) given up for adoption. That’s why Angelina Jolie and Madonna are constantly having to break up tribal wars to adopt Third World children.

A 2008 study led by Georgia State University economist Benjamin Scafidi conservatively estimated that single mothers cost the U.S. taxpayer $112 billion every year — in addition to asking the rest of us to keep an eye on their kids while they go clubbing.

We could have had two Iraq wars — Obama could have “saved or created” half a million stimulus jobs — at that price.

But in fact, Scafidi underestimated single mothers’ burden to society by excluding additional costs of single mothers to poverty programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit.

That makes his estimates very low: Single mothers are six times more likely to be in poverty than married families. More than 80 percent of homeless families are single mothers.

Scafidi’s study also did not consider the burden single mothers place on law enforcement because of their higher likelihood to neglect or kill their children.

Eighty-five percent of mothers who kill their children through neglect are single mothers.

I didn’t write this. Ann Coulter wrote this. So you can’t blame me! Speaking as a Christian man, when I read Ann Coulter, I feel an enormous burden lifted off of me. Instead of having to be the bad guy with feminism, emotivism and irresponsibility, I can step aside and let Ann be the bad gal, and maybe just buy her some flowers to reward her for protecting the children from the selfishness of the feminists. Why should I have to do all the heavy lifting all the time? I think it’s good when Christian women chastise the feminists.

She also talks about the benefits of adoption in the article, and I’m sure she would agree with me that financial inventives for adoption should be increased. I was thinking about the problem, and I think that it would be a great idea for the government to put a 50% tax on public sector pensions, and then use the money to provide adoptive parents with tax credits equal to 1% of the annual earnings of their adopted children. That would fix things pretty quickly. Put a tax on evil, and give a tax break for good. It would also be a good idea to not legalize same-sex marriage, because legalizing  same-sex marriage means putting adoption agencies out of business.

What causes single motherhood, anyway?

It’s important to remember that the elevation of premarital sex was one of the main aims of feminism. Feminism is the denial that men are supposed to perform special male roles, like being protectors, providers and moral/spiritual leaders. And when women deny the special roles that men play, then they lost the ability to evaluate men to perform those special roles. Instead of choosing men based on the requirements of marriage, they choose men based on the requirement of recreational sex. Naturally, this leads to fatherlessness, and increased child abuse, child neglect and child poverty. It all starts with the feminists’ decision to say that there is no special way that men ought to be – and NO ONE coerces them to say that, they freely choose to embrace this ideology that says that there is nothing special about men.

Consider this academic feminist writing in the New York Times.

Excerpt:

If there’s anything that feminism has bequeathed to young women of means, it’s that power is their birthright. Visit an American college campus on a Monday morning and you’ll find any number of amazingly ambitious and talented young women wielding their brain power, determined not to let anything– including a relationship with some needy, dependent man– get in their way. Come back on party night, and you’ll find many of these same girls… wielding their sexual power, dressed as provocatively as they dare, matching guys drink for drink– and then hook up for hook up.

According to Bauer, the party ends with said liberated empowered inebriated woman down on her knees. As Bauer so nicely expresses it: “When they’re on their knees in front of a worked-up guy they just met at a party, they genuinely feel powerful– sadistic even.”

But not only do feminists oppose the traditional roles of men, they also oppose marriage itself. If you oppose marriage then of course you are going to get more single motherhood, which leads to fatherlessness, and increased child abuse, child neglect and child poverty.

Recall that feminist activists deliberately set up the goal of destroying marriage.

Excerpt:

Another feminist widely read during the 1990s was Barbara Ehrenreich, a former columnist with Time magazine who now writes for The Nation.43 Throughout her work, Ehrenreich extols single parenthood and disparages marriage. Divorce, she argues, produces “no lasting psychological damage” for children. What America needs is not fewer divorces but more “good divorces.”44 Rather than seeking to strengthen marriage, policymakers “should concentrate on improving the quality of divorce.”45 In general, Ehrenreich concludes that single parenthood presents no problems that cannot be solved by much larger government subsidies to single parents.46

Ehrenreich writes enthusiastically about efforts to move beyond the narrow limits of the nuclear married family toward more rational forms of human relationship:

There is a long and honorable tradition of “anti-family” thought. The French philosopher Charles Fourier taught that the family was a barrier to human progress; early feminists saw a degrading parallel between marriage and prostitution. More recently, the renowned British anthropologist Edmund Leach stated, “far from being the basis of the good society, the family with its narrow privacy and tawdry secrets, is the source of all discontents.”47

While Ehrenreich recognizes that men and women are inevitably drawn to one another, she believes male-female relationships should be ad hoc, provisional, and transitory. She particularly disparages the idea of long-term marital commitment between fathers and mothers. In the future, children will be raised increasingly by communal groups of adults.48 These children apparently will fare far better than those raised within the tight constraints of the nuclear married family “with its deep impacted tensions.”49

So it’s feminism that is the root cause of single motherhood, and it ends up turning into a vicious circle. Women deny that men have special roles, and they choose to have sex with men based on appearance, peer approval and entertainment value. Those men abandon them or refuse to marry them. They turn to government and vote in social programs to replace the now absent men. The state introduces single-payer health care, state-run day care, and taxpayer-funded IVF. Taxes and spending increase. Fewer men marry, because they cannot afford to marry. Feminists complain that men are irresponsible and evil. They have babies with sperm donors. Their sons and daughters have no idea what marriage is about, so they don’t marry, and just end up hurting others and themselves. And around it goes.

It all starts with feminist ideology – the denial that men have special roles as protectors, providers and moral/spiritual leaders.

You can read a recent interview with Ann Coulter on John Hawkins’ Right Wing News.

Related posts

More related posts

Filed under: Commentary, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

68 Responses

  1. Mary says:

    I am glad that Coulter is highlighting the dangers of failing to provide a child with a father. I’m also glad that she’s emphasizing the benefits of adoption.

    That said, she’s rather unhelpful when she makes statements like this one: “The statistics are so jaw-dropping that not giving up an illegitimate child for adoption ought to be considered child abuse.”

    Really?? So if a single mother doesn’t giver her child up for adoption, it’s abuse? What utter nonsense. To be sure, single parenthood is problematic. And if the mother in question harbours resentment towards her child or knows they’re not capable of doing a decent job, then they should give the child up for adoption. But I’ve seen single mothers defy the odds and do a sterling job. I’ve seen single moms (usually the sort that regret being single moms) who have protected their children fiercely.

    Moreover, this is poor statistical analysis. Just because 70 % of delinquents are from single moms doesn’t mean 70% of single moms produce delinquents. Instead, the number should be compared to the proportion of children who are being brought up by single parents – which is actually 25% for the US. Yes, it’s a disproportionate number, but it’s not the whole story. What we need to know is what percentage of children raised by single parents go on to be delinquents, which is a more helpful measure. I don’t know the stats for that one offhand, but I do know that while single parenthood is a big risk factor, and therefore to be avoided, that it’s not an insurmountable obstacle for those who get into that situation, regret doing so, and want to do the best with what they have.

    When she says illogical, mean-spirited things like that she makes conservatives lose credibility and she makes no room for repentance and grace. So no, she won’t be getting any thanks from me for this outburst.

    • I would say most women are less socially conservative than Ann Coulter. Ann favors personal responsibility, limited government and traditional marriage more than most women do. It’s OK. Ann is extremely socially conservative and most young, unmarried women are socially liberal. Ann’s view is that women should take responsibility for vetting men, and making men marry, in order to prevent single motherhood. Most women are influenced by feminism and pop culture (popular music, popular movies, televeision sitcoms), and so they disagree with her and think that women should be allowed to use the 180-second rule to choose men, be swept away on an emotional roller-coaster, try to change men after then they get them to commit to marriage, and then punt to nofault divorce, false accusations of abuse, divorce courts, alimony, child support, and massive government-run programs. The liberal use of alcohol and hooking up is one of the ways that young women avoid responsibility for their aggressive pursuit of marriage-via-drunken-premarital-hook-up-sex – which is the feminist replacement for courting. And if things don’t “work out” then the alcohol can be blamed. Ann has a simpler idea – women act like good citizens and make better decisions about who they sleep with. Ann is a lady. She understands courting and chivalry, and she expects women to act responsibly and morally – to restrain themselves with logic and evidence.

      • Mary says:

        Sure. All of that’s good. I agree with all of that. But you’ve completely ignored the point I made.

        • What she is saying is that single motherhood is like a man drinking a case of beer and then getting behind the wheel of a car. Avoid it, because there is a significant chance that you could harm someone. Men and women need to realize what the consequences of fatherlessness are, and what the probabilities are, and restrain themselves accordingly. I think there is a tremendous problem we have in this culture where people want to do whatever they feel like and then think they can buck the odds. Drunk driving IS dangerous, and so is sex outside of marriage. Drunk driving IS dangerous, and so is choosing a husband using emotions, peer approval and appearances. The old way – courtship, chastity and parental approval – was best. Now that feminism, which most young, unmarried women accept, is the dominant view, there is vastly more child abuse. Feminism leads to child abuse, by way of denying that 1) premarital sex is wrong, 2) sex is not for recreation but for procreation, 3) men have special roles in a marriage, and 4) there are rules and methods that women should be prepared to use to evaluate men for those roles. When the LAST generation of women chose divorce, the resulting fatherlessness caused THIS generation of women to embrace premarital sex as a way of getting the attention they lost. And this is where abortion comes from, largely. That’s why Ann is urging women to be careful about their sexual choices. And things are only going to get worse as government expands to provide tax-payer funded day care, taxpayer-funded IVF, and so on. This is all caused by feminism – the idea that the best man is the man who doesn’t judge women and doesn’t expect her to have loving obligations to men and children in a marriage.

          Men are partly to blame because they refuse to resist the free offer of premarital sex. They are guilty for harming children by embracing sex outside of marriage. But I think women are more to blame because women are traditional the gatekeepers of sexual behavior, as George Gilder argued in “Sexual Suicide”, later republished as “Men and Marriage”. It’s women who control the throttle in a relationship, and they are the ones who need to get informed and to change.

          • Mary says:

            I agree with most of what you’ve said, with the exception that I think men are equally to blame. For every single mother, there’s a man involved. That’s a biological fact. It may turn out practically that women are the gatekeepers in these matters, but that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be equally the man’s responsibility.

            But you and Coulter are talking about different things in the quote to which I objected. She’s no longer discussing the matter of producing the child, but the matter of what to do once there *is* a child, which is a new decision. In Coulter’s view, a single mother who sees that she has made a grave mistake may not bring up her own child, or else she’s guilty of “child abuse”. This is a perverse view to promote. Sure, giving the child up for adoption is an excellent option. But that doesn’t mean we must now forcibly remove children from their single mothers – which is what Coulter’s inflammatory statement implies. And as I said before, it completely ignores the possibility of repentance and grace.

          • Men are less to blame because fewer men vote for these policies than women. Men are more conservative than women. We believe more in moral accountability than “compassion”. Check out my debate with Sarah on Facebook. Compassion is what created divorce and abortion. “You wouldn’t want a woman to be trapped in a loveless marriage that she freely chose?” = NO-FAULT DIVORCE = FATHERLESSNESS = MORE CHILD ABUSE = MORE CHILD POVERTY. “You don’t want women to be punished with a baby and have to give up her education and career for the recreational sex she freely chose because her mother divorced the man she freely chose to marry?” = TAXPAYER-FUNDED ABORTION = MORE CHILD ABUSE. Until women decide that men actually know something about morality, and should be praised for making moral judgments and exclusive claims about religion and morality, we are never going to pull out of the cultural nose-dive that “compassion” put us into. Compassion is great in the home, at the personal level. It is LOUSY policy in the public square.

          • Mary says:

            Well then, it seems then that there are just more male hypocrites – more men who vote conservative and behave as liberals, vs women – because the number of male-female dalliances that produce illegitimate children is equal for the sexes (it has to be, biologically!).

            Divorce and abortion are off-topic with regard to my point of what to do when there *is* already a child of a single mom. Compassion is good in policy too – provided it’s genuine compassion, and not what passes for “compassion” in liberal circles. Looking out for the best interests of the child is compassion.

            Answer this: should we take children who are born out of wedlock away from their mothers? If not, why not – seeing as them keeping their children is “child abuse” in Coulter’s eyes?

          • Two points:

            1) What we want to avoid is acting as though single motherhood is a given. I.e. – that women should be allowed to do whatever they want and then we can discuss who to murder (the unborn) who to regulate (divorced fathers and divorced children) and who to tax (working fathers) after the fact. We don’t want to take the harm caused by freely chosen risky behavior as a given, then get backed into having to celebrate and affirm their decisions to become single mothers, and to avoid judging them with moral absolutes and exclusive factual claims about evidence. Teen pregnancy, cohabitation and single motherhood are not givens – they are caused by women having sex with men, mostly because the previous generation decided to choose men based on emotions, peer-approval and permissiveness, and then divorced them. These problems are caused because women have decided to select men, and to vote for political candidates, based largely on appearances, emotions, peer-approval, and other trivialities. The resulting pathologies are relatively new to us… we didn’t have them in the 1950s before feminism.

            2) We need to talk about what is more likely to increase the child abuse and fatherlessness that “compassion” caused. What we’ve done is embrace policies that made women feel better about making poor decisions with men, and then subsidized abortion, single motherhood and so forth. We don’t even put women who murder their own children in jail any more, or women who murder their husbands. We just don’t want to hold women accountable for what they do. And this “compassion” has resulted in a 40% out of wedlock birth rate, a 15 trillion dollar debt, and ballooning government designed to make husbands and fathers optional. And the men decided that they liked freely available sex now more than western civilization tomorrow. They stopped judging women and telling them the truth in exchange for easy sex. And men often do the same in marriage – they just clam up rather than have an argument about punishing the child. In Quebec,, daughters and mothers take fathers to court to have groundings overturned by female judges and female lawyers. There is no respect for men as moral leaders, theology/apologetics leaders, protectors or providers. The whole society has been remade to deny any authority and respect to the distinctive positive traits of men. And men played along in exchange for sex.

            To answer your question, we should not use the government to take children away from their mothers, unless there is a possibility of a crime. However, because of feminism, children are taken away from their fathers every day, often with false accusations of abuse that are never brought to trial. Many men become depressed and many more commit suicide, because they do not see their children for years. Read “Taken Into Custody” by Stephen Baskerville and find out exactly what the state does to fathers. I recommend that book, along with Maggie Gallagher’s “The Abolition of Marriage”. Where did state-sponsored fatherlessness come from? It came from feminism and compassion. No-fault divorce was created in order to “rescue” women who made the free decision to marry a man who they did not evaluate carefully. And the result is the epidemic of fatherlessness, child poverty and child abuse – often committed by stressed out single mothers and the non-biological men they allow near the children. Compassion causes child abuse and child poverty. Making women into victims who are not responsible for their own rejection of moral standards caused child abuse and child poverty. The solution is for women to take responsibility for their own decisions, to be chaste, to choose men who are chaste, to evaluate men for marriage, and to be the kind of woman who is able to perform her obligations to men and children in a marriage. Women today have rejected all of this, and the result is abortion, child abuse and child poverty. Etc.

            Women need to do a lot better job of understanding men and marriage and children. There is more to it than photographs, weddings, feelings and day dreams. Women need to become very very suspicious of rationalizing selfish actions and blaming others and expecting others to make them feel good and pay for their mistakes after they’ve freely made them. We need more accountability and more moral reasoning and more knowledge of marriage and parenting and economics and politics from women. Every day there are children of single mothers who are suffering because their mothers freely chose to have sex with a man who did not pass the tests for husbands and fathers. They do this because they accept what feminism teaches – that recreational sex is normal, that men have no special roles, and that marriage is evil because it involves sex roles. Feminism is the cause of the misery of these children, and it is aided and abetted by “compassion” and anti-male blame-shifting.

          • Mara says:

            I don’t care what you say, Wintery.
            Men ARE NOT less to blame than women, over all.
            You may not be to blame. And I may not be to blame because we believe in and practice celebacy until marriage and vote conservative.

            The point is, this is a sex saturated culture, where they sell men cars and booze and everything else using sex and where they sell porn and make it available on internet which teaches boys and young men that it is their right to have sex with whatever available female there may be.

            The culture is centered around the MALE libdo, not the female one. Women are simply taught by it that in order to fit in with this culture they need to become the sex objects that culture teaches them to be.

            You can talk up one side and down the other about politics and policys. The problem is that men want to have the availability of all this visual sex, sex, sex, and then want to blame women for the results.

            Women don’t own the major advertizing agencies and the porn magizines that push the sex free for all we have here.
            They are only responding to the leading of their men.
            I may want to blame men more because of all of this, but I will restrain myself and instead just call you to the completely reasonable position of realizing that women ARE NOT more responsible. That is just a male cop-out and easy scapegoat.

            The problems exist. Blaming women solves nothing because is doesn’t deal with all the variables that men conveniently overlook.

          • Mary says:

            Thanks, Mara. I was getting quite exhausted trying to explain that. :-P

          • Em says:

            Just because women are the “traditional gatekeepers of sexual behavior” doesn’t make them the only ones involved in a choice to have sex and what to do about the consequences. Yes, if women said ‘no’ more, there would be fewer unwanted pregnancies. But the same is true of men.

            Traditionally, women had more to lose if they chose a sexual partner or husband poorly. Now, with unequal laws favoring women in cases of child custody, divorce, child support, etc., men have just as much to lose and just as much responsibility as women do to make good choices.

            Also, I agree that a woman has more power to make a (normal, non-abusive) relationship happy than a man does, but I recently heard a Focus on the Family segment that said the number 1 and 2 factors in a woman choosing abortion were:

            1) Whether or not she had the support of her boyfriend/husband in raising the child.

            2) Whether or not she had her father’s support.

            It seems that men have an equally large role to play and, while it is very helpful to call women out on what they have control over, it is also important to empower men to step up.

          • Jared says:

            I’m going to argue for WK here. :) Probably won’t be as forceful.

            “The point is, this is a sex saturated culture, where they sell men cars and booze and everything else using sex and where they sell porn and make it available on internet which teaches boys and young men that it is their right to have sex with whatever available female there may be.”

            Totally agree. The female body is beautiful, the male body is not. So, selling of the female body whether on the street or on the net’ is profitable. Men want women so they’ll even take virtual women. This does teach men they can have women when they want and where they want. I agree.

            “The culture is centered around the MALE libdo, not the female one. Women are simply taught by it that in order to fit in with this culture they need to become the sex objects that culture teaches them to be.”

            Again, I agree. Like I said earlier, our culture is centered around the male libido because it sells. Oh boy, does it sell. Women are taught, as WK and I have both said before on this blog, from the media and from their peers (trickle down effect) do give in to reckless sex and sell their body for money and/or love. It’s horrid.

            “You can talk up one side and down the other about politics and policys. The problem is that men want to have the availability of all this visual sex, sex, sex, and then want to blame women for the results.”

            Men do want the availability of sex, they do (the bad men do). They also want to blame women.

            “Women don’t own the major advertizing agencies and the porn magizines that push the sex free for all we have here.
            They are only responding to the leading of their men.
            I may want to blame men more because of all of this, but I will restrain myself and instead just call you to the completely reasonable position of realizing that women ARE NOT more responsible. That is just a male cop-out and easy scapegoat.”

            No the women don’t own the advertising agencies and such, but they do own their minds and bodies. They don’t have to take the bait. I don’t want to blame women or men, but WK’s argument of women choosing good men over the ones the media tells them to choose and if women chose to live a different life than what the media tells them to live, then porn wouldn’t sell and catering to the male libido would not be profitable.

            I think a stronger approach to the culture we’re in is for women to just say no. Right now, men are weakened by porn and the high availability of sex related things. Men are so much more weaker to sex than women (generally, I know the stats of women addicted to porn are rising) are. Kudos to women for being stronger! Seriously.

            So, I wouldn’t blame women, but I would say WK’s concept of women choosing good men is a stronger one than men getting over their porn addictions. Sad to say, but the majority of men will not quit their addiction with sex unless it’s not available. Then, the addiction could be starved. This isn’t for every man obviously, but the majority of men will only get over the lust for sex via starvation, i.e., not being so readily available.

          • Mara says:

            Jared: “Sad to say, but the majority of men will not quit their addiction with sex unless it’s not available. Then, the addiction could be starved. This isn’t for every man obviously, but the majority of men will only get over the lust for sex via starvation, i.e., not being so readily available.”

            Jared, I appreciate you not laying all the blame at the feet of women. However, I must point out that your above quote is is completely unrealistic. It will always be available. It always has been available.
            (this commenting thing is driving me crazy so I’m going to start a new comment)

          • Mara says:

            It will always be available as long as there is organized crime, poverty stricken third world countries that exploit their women, and now virtual pornography like what you see in video games.
            Women have no control over those things. And I don’t see and end in sight to the supply. As long as there is a demand THERE WILL BE A SUPPLY.
            (start another new one)

          • Mara says:

            And you are falling into the trap that Wintery can’t seem to escape.
            It is assumed that bad men are just a part of life and don’t reflect on the majority of men. But the existence of bad women reflects on all women.
            Bad men can run the advertising agencies and exploit insecure, vulnerable, attention seeking women. That’s life. But women being exploited by it, well… Women need to get it together and straighten up.
            It’s not a fair position.

          • Francine says:

            “Totally agree. The female body is beautiful, the male body is not.”

            I disagree. We are just more accustomed to seeing the female body sexualized. We see beautiful women, scantily clad, made up and airbrushed plastered all over our world. The amount that we see the same of the male body is minuscule in comparison. Mostly when we see men they are “average” looking. I believe this feeds the idea that the male is somehow inherently less objectively attractive than the female. A male body that is “dressed” up like all the female bodies we see *all the time* is just as attractive. We just don’t see it near as often.

            There’s a Geico commercial airing right now that has grabbed my attention for this very reason. The couple is presenting the typical middle class happy American family. The wife is slender and pretty. The husband is noticeably rounder. You would *never* see this the other way around.

  2. Marshall Art says:

    Mary,

    You’re confusing hyperbole with an actual suggestion. Coulter referring to not giving up an illegitimate child as equal to child abuse was simply a way of highlighting just how difficult it is for such children to not be impacted negatively. To put it another way, if one was forced to make a decision based on the facts, the risk of trying to raise a child alone would be greater (for the child) than to give it up for adoption where a couple can provide the proper influence of both a mother and a father. Even in the best of circumstances, the child often has neither, as the mother must work longer hours to provide for the kid.

    This is a problem with reading Coulter or listening to her go off on a topic. Too often people will focus on such hyperbole and ignore the point she was making by using the hyperbole. Does she intend to push for laws making single mothers equal to abusers for not giving up their kids to adoption? Get serious.

    • Mary says:

      Thanks, Marshall. You’re getting to my actual concern. I think the hyperbole she uses is unhelpful. She just comes off as a crazy, ranting harpy. As a result, conservatives don’t get taken seriously, and liberals feel justified in labeling conservatives as crazies. I’m in favour of rational, clear reasoning – without the hyperbole, which only serves to whip people up and persuades nobody to change their mind.

      There are two points of intervention when it comes to single motherhood. There is the preventative point of intervention (which WK discusses in detail and with which I thoroughly agree), and then there’s the point of intervention when women have already conceived a child out of wedlock. What then? We have to do better than just taking them on a guilt trip – not just for their sake, but for the sake of their children. Many women have abortions out of fear of being shamed. I’ve seen it in testimony after testimony, especially in young women. Ok, so the odds are against their kids. We acknowledge that. How then do we do damage control? How do we give people real hope when they mess up and they want to turn the situation around. Because frankly, if we don’t have a plan for this we play into the hands of the pro-aborts who are only too happy to lie to women and ostensibly “solve their problems”, all the while sounding caring and reasonable while conservatives sound cruel and unreasonable. When one is dealing with people, how we communicate matters. People are not just intellectual, but also emotional. And like it or not their emotions affect their decisions in a big way. We need to win hearts as well as minds.

      We also need to remember, as Christians, that we’re all guilty of sin. That doesn’t mean excusing sin in others to feel better about our own sin, but it does mean exercising grace, as we’ve been the recipients of grace. Coulter’s response is ungracious.

      • Mary says:

        I think it also makes light of actual, real child abuse when the term gets bandied about to refer to unwed mothers who don’t give up their kids for adoption. If we use the term this loosely then what term do we use for women who really are abusive? If any unwed mother who keeps her child instead of giving her up for adoption is lumped in with Casey Anthony then it makes light of the Casey Anthony situation.

  3. Dan Rodger says:

    She has balls [metaphorically of course], if a women wrote that in England and it got into the press there would be a riot.

  4. Dina says:

    The number of male-female daliances that produce illegitimate children is not equal for the sexes. I often see men who have fathered anywhere from 2-10 children to different women. 1 man, 10 women. There are women who have several children to different fathers as well, but it is more common to see the same man returning with a different woman than vice versa. I have seen two women give birth on the same day to children belonging to the same man.
    As an old lady of 88yrs said, “If there were no bad women, there would be no bad men”. It goes right back to Eve if you think about it.

    • Mara says:

      If there were no bad men, there would be no bad women. That goes right back to Adam who blamed God and Eve for his willful sin, while Eve fessed up and told it like it was without blaming anybody except the one who deserved it.
      The serpant was a deceiving sinner.
      Adam was a willful sinner.
      Eve was a deceived sinner.

      • Dina says:

        So even in the Garden of Eden, the woman has the serpent to take the blame for her actions and she is not responsible because she was deceived?

  5. Jared says:

    I’ll probably be called many names for publicly posting my thoughts on the Casey Anthony trial. However, I trust the people who post on this blog to give me an honest answer and I also trust the blog-owner to give an honest answer.

    I’m not posting the question to create a response and I’m also seriously not trying to be a jerk. I saw the question on Yahoo! answers, but there wasn’t any intelligent discussion going on when the question was asked; just a bunch of name-calling on both sides of the political spectrum.

    My question is: Do you all think the people who were outraged over the murder/death of the child support abortion? It’s just a thought. Or did every person appalled by the death of the child also oppose abortion? Thoughts?

    • Mara says:

      That’s actually a very interesting question.
      Too bad we’ll probably never get to the bottom of that one.

      • jerry says:

        I believe it’s only an interesting question depending on your view of when life begins. If you believe life begins at conception then that question matters. If you believe life begins at birth or shortly before then that question means nothing since aborting non-human life cell growth is not equivalent to murdering a feeling, sensient human being. Wintery has covered these topics pretty thoroughly.

  6. Mara says:

    And Mary, you were doing awesome. I just couldn’t sit by and continually watch them miss the point so had to jump in from a different angle.
    I agree, women need to be trained to choose wisely. But all the training in the world won’t do a bit of good as long a men are allowed to blame the women for their addiction and other men’s addictions to porn and the overall moral decay of the world.
    Men have a lot of responsibility in this too and it is nowhere near less than half.

    • Mary says:

      Thanks, Mara. You know, when people say that men just can’t do any better and women have to carry the full weight of making change happen in this area, I think how insulting that is to men to tell them that they’re incapable of making change. It’s (ironically!) not unlike the message conveyed to teenagers who have condoms handed out to them in high schools, namely that we really have very low expectations for them, and we don’t think they’re capable of any better. Men ARE capable of chastity. WK is an example. If he can do it, so can others. He’s not a robot, immune to temptation. But chastity can be done and should be something BOTH men and women strive for.

      • Jared says:

        Well, men are capable of change. I’ll give an example in my own life since that is my own experience. I started dating this young lady (now my wife) and we had been on several dates talking and enjoying each others company. We learned we had a lot in common. Well, one night I was dropping her off at her house and kissed her goodnight. Then, I was going to kiss her again and she stopped me (nicely). She told me she wasn’t into that since we were dating. I respected that.

        So, she made me a better man. I honestly didn’t know women like that existed or if they did they were feminists. Hey, that’s just what I learned from magazines, school (public school) and TV :) lol Seriously, though after she told me “No,” I learned. She didn’t have to worry about me again.

        No, I don’t mean to imply women should carry the load. I see where I was wrong for saying that. However, if all people on dates started saying “No,” to each other, then real change could possibly be made. It will take a long time, but it could happen. I do still believe in the area of sex, stronger women make stronger men and both produce better families.

        I love this blog because I learn so much, not just from WK, but from you ladies too.

  7. I think it’s also important to point out where this emphasis on women having sex before marriage (just like men!) came from. It came from feminists.

    Consider the words of this academic feminist, writing in the New York Times.

    Quote:

    If there’s anything that feminism has bequeathed to young women of means, it’s that power is their birthright. Visit an American college campus on a Monday morning and you’ll find any number of amazingly ambitious and talented young women wielding their brain power, determined not to let anything– including a relationship with some needy, dependent man– get in their way. Come back on party night, and you’ll find many of these same girls… wielding their sexual power, dressed as provocatively as they dare, matching guys drink for drink– and then hook up for hook up.

    Source:

    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/lady-power/?src=twt&twt=NYTOpinionator

    According to Bauer, the party ends with said liberated empowered inebriated woman down on her knees. As Bauer so nicely expresses it: “When they’re on their knees in front of a worked-up guy they just met at a party, they genuinely feel powerful– sadistic even.”

  8. I think it’s also important to point out where this emphasis on replacing marriage with single motherhood (so that women can work, just like men!) came from. It came from feminists.

    Consider this study of prominent feminists compiled by the Heritage Foundation.

    Quote:

    Another feminist widely read during the 1990s was Barbara Ehrenreich, a former columnist with Time magazine who now writes for The Nation.43 Throughout her work, Ehrenreich extols single parenthood and disparages marriage. Divorce, she argues, produces “no lasting psychological damage” for children. What America needs is not fewer divorces but more “good divorces.”44 Rather than seeking to strengthen marriage, policymakers “should concentrate on improving the quality of divorce.”45 In general, Ehrenreich concludes that single parenthood presents no problems that cannot be solved by much larger government subsidies to single parents.46

    Ehrenreich writes enthusiastically about efforts to move beyond the narrow limits of the nuclear married family toward more rational forms of human relationship:

    There is a long and honorable tradition of “anti-family” thought. The French philosopher Charles Fourier taught that the family was a barrier to human progress; early feminists saw a degrading parallel between marriage and prostitution. More recently, the renowned British anthropologist Edmund Leach stated, “far from being the basis of the good society, the family with its narrow privacy and tawdry secrets, is the source of all discontents.”47

    While Ehrenreich recognizes that men and women are inevitably drawn to one another, she believes male-female relationships should be ad hoc, provisional, and transitory. She particularly disparages the idea of long-term marital commitment between fathers and mothers. In the future, children will be raised increasingly by communal groups of adults.48 These children apparently will fare far better than those raised within the tight constraints of the nuclear married family “with its deep impacted tensions.”49

    Source:

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2003/06/Why-Congress-Should-Ignore-Radical-Feminist-Opposition-to-Marriage

    • Mary says:

      Right. And look who started all the trouble: a MAN, by the name of Charles Fourier who was no doubt irked by the barrier to commitment-free sex that marriage was to him. And what about this Edmund Leach character? Yup, another MAN.

      • I’m blaming feminists. Men can be feminists, too.

        • Jared says:

          Feminist men are so strange…I just don’t understand how a man can be a feminist. Do they do it to try and impress the ladies? :p

          • Mary says:

            @Jared: I think some do it for that reason.

            If you want a really bizarre quote from a man, here’s an interesting quote from http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/anything_else_on_the_menu/

            This on Dan Savage, whom the New York Times describes as “America’s leading sex-advice columnist”. Savage writes a syndicated column for more than 50 newspapers and even appears on the Times op-ed page from time to time. i.e. A lot of people listen to him and take his advice. :-S

            Savage, who claims to be both “culturally Catholic” and gay, thinks that gay couples have a lot to teach heterosexual couples, especially about monogamy. Idealising monogamy destroys families, he contends. Men are simply not made to be monogamous. Until feminism came along, men had mistresses and visited prostitutes. But instead of extending the benefits of the sexual revolution to women, feminism imposed a chastity belt on men. “And it’s been a disaster for marriage,” he says. What we need, in his opinion, is relationships which are open to the occasional fling – as long as partners are open about it.

            His (bizarre) contention is that feminism imposed a chastity belt on men. Hah! If only…

          • Mary says:

            Also feminism allows a certain type of man to advocate for “liberated” women – i.e. women who discard chastity and will have commitment-free sex with them. i.e. for some men feminism is really, really convenient. Better still for them, women can take part in “slut walks” and parade down the street in their underwear. It’s a male chauvinist pig’s dream come true… Ugh.

        • Mary says:

          And WK, you didn’t just blame feminists. You blamed women in general.

          Your words:
          Men are partly to blame because they refuse to resist the free offer of premarital sex. They are guilty for harming children by embracing sex outside of marriage. But I think women are more to blame because women are traditional the gatekeepers of sexual behavior, as George Gilder argued in “Sexual Suicide”, later republished as “Men and Marriage”. It’s women who control the throttle in a relationship, and they are the ones who need to get informed and to change.”

          Well, I think men and women are equally to blame for the mess our society’s in with regard to sex and marriage.

          • Mara says:

            And it’s not just that he blames women. He give men a pass for always believing that they have the right to have sex before marriage. And when women apply, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” then everything that is ever wrong with society is the woman’s fault. Even though men DID start it first. Men want women to “Do as I say, not as I do.” Men who take that position have abdicted any position of leadership over women.

          • Mara says:

            This attitude of giving men a pass because boys will be boys and holding women more responsible because men have decide that they women the gate keepers of morality flies in the face of the words of Jesus, Himself.

          • Mara says:

            Jesus said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” and, “Any man who looks upon a woman to lust after her has commited adultery in his heart already.” Placing more blame on women doesn’t line up with the anything Jesus said.

          • Mara says:

            As long as you give men this pass, you will never change anything. The last thing any man wants is to be controlled by a woman. Men MUST control themselves. As long as they believe it is up to the women and that they can blame women, the battle is lost.

          • Mara says:

            The fruit of the Spirit involves self-control. It is not gender specific. It is something both men and women are called on to operate in equally. There is no more blame for women than for men for lack of self-control.

          • Mary says:

            I agree with you, Mara. And it’s really bad for men to give them this skewed perspective. Men don’t only take their cues from women. They take their cues from men they respect. If men they respect teach them that it’s primarily the woman’s responsibility, we end up with passive, self-indulgent men. But if men they respect call them to a high standard, then they are driven to meet that standard. Ironically, this is one of the reasons why good fathers are so important. A good father tells his sons to treat women as people, to be chaste, to be self controlled – and he models this for them by being faithful to their mother and not celebrating celebrity libertines. Young men look to a more mature male figure to give them male direction. There are some things women can’t teach them as well as men can. So more mature men have a responsibility to call younger men to whole, biblical manhood.

  9. One other point, single motherhood that is brought on by the death of the husband is fine. The research shows that the effect on the children is much less. So I am not condemning that at all, since no harm is done.

    • Mary says:

      Well, it’s not “fine”. It’s sad and does affect the child. Sure, not as much, but it’s still not good for the child. But sad things happen in life. And if the husband dies from a terminal illness for example, it can’t be helped.

      The issue here is with preventable fatherlessness.

    • Em says:

      I wonder if being orphaned has less of an effect (obviously not no effect because it is very tragic and traumatic) than having a father leave because:

      1) An orphaned child feels they were ‘wanted’ by their father.
      or
      2) An orphaned child’s mother is more likely to have a stable, sensible personality than someone with a self-focused sexuality and therefore be better capable of raising children.
      3) other?

      I’d bet it’s a combination of 1 & 2 (with potential other factors I’m not thinking of), but it would be interesting to learn the cause of that.

  10. Mara says:

    I’d also like to make something clear.
    In the case of two people having irresponible sex, both are equally guilty.
    The one that bears the most responsibility as in, being around to care for the child, not as in guilty of bad behavoir, is usually the female.
    In this case, she’s not the one most responsible for the sin, she’s just bearing the responibility of caring for the child. Just the way it is.
    In case that was confusing anyone.

    • Mara says:

      The point of this is, the woman feeling more responsible for the child and sticking around for it more the the father does not make her more guilty. She just bears more of the result of two people being irresponsible.
      If anything, she’s to be more highly commended than the father who hits and runs.
      Still doesn’t make it right.
      It is still in the best interest of all women and children for women to avoid sex before marriage.

      • Mary says:

        It also depends on the motives. Some women intentionally go out and get themselves pregnant with no intention of involving the husband at all. Others are weak and cave to the wiles of a charming, seductive man who tells them he loves them to get sex from them. I would say that the woman who intentionally goes out to get pregnant and deprive her child of a father is worse. Motives matter.

        • Mara says:

          I can’t argue with that.

        • Well, do you think that women have a responsibility to learn about these things before consenting to sex? Maybe read some books, get into debates, write some essays?

          I think that the difference between myself and you and Mara is as follows: I condemn situations that have a significant possibility of harming children, and society as a whole. I oppose child abuse. I oppose child neglect. I oppose abortion. I oppose socialism. I oppose high taxes. I oppose social programs. I oppose fatherlessness. I oppose making decisions that put children, and western civilization itself, at risk. Ann Coulter has no qualms about condemning single motherhood, because she loves children, men and marriage. She cannot IMAGINE the idea of having a child without first vetting a man who can fulfill the traditional roles of a man: protector, provider, and moral/spiritual leader. She opposes anything and everything that minimizes the man’s role, and she blames women who freely choose to be uninformed, reckless and negligent about the effects of their own free decisions. And that’s why men are crazy about her, because it would be crazy to marry a woman who doesn’t come down HARD against feminism.

          • Mary says:

            WK, I agree with all of that. I just hold men to the same standard. And I think it would be crazy for a woman to marry a man who doesn’t do so. He won’t teach his sons well.

          • Mara says:

            I think the difference between you and me is that you look at life, the organic, and sin mixed into it in term of machinery or cold steel computer logic, and power structures.

            I see things as more organic, and more about being rooted and grounded in the things of God, thereby producing fruit in keeping with repentence. In other words, I see people as being able to change from the inside out rather than the outside in. Forcing forms for people to occupy will not change them.
            I am for the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, and the Two Great Commandments that Jesus gave.
            I am for justice AND mercy and not the kind of mercy that winks at sin and subsidizes it, but rather the kind that says, “Go, and sin no more.” Because, guess what. People sin. It is our fallen nature.
            I do believe in training both men and women in what is good and right behavior and how to treat one another in the love of Christian brotherhood, always pointing toward the higher call of Jesus Christ.

            You are expecting people to make the right decisions when they were never given the right ones to begin with. People that come from generational curses and dysfunction that goes farther back than the fifies, forties, thirties, etc.
            And you are trying to deal with their issues strictly from a head knowledge position that will accomplish nothing if you don’t have their hearts as well. Dealing with only head knowledge produces shallow pat answers that don’t deal with the real issues and produces forms that are useless because there is no depth.

            Jesus is the Vine, we are the branches. Every branch that is attached will produce fruit in keeping with repentence. Every branch that is not attached will dry up and is only good to be burned. (John 15)
            I’m wanting people to attach. You are trying to get them to produce fruit they are incapable of because they aren’t attatched.
            The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Pr 1:7)

            The great changes that have moved our nation back to God are things like The Great Awakening, and other revivals that changed the hearts of the people.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Awakening

            The difference between you and me is this. Where I DO see the need for intellectual and logical discussion and apologetics, I also know that people are made up of more than that. That you can win an intellectual arguement which will influence some. But what will get the majority is the heart arguement and/or a touch from God.
            Condeming and finger pointing and stroking the male ego and protecting men from their share of the blame is also counter productive to the big picture.

            I have more on our differences but wordpress has been too kind to let me go overboard on this comment so I’ll stop here.l

          • Mary says:

            I agree with what Mara has said (again!). :)

            “I’m wanting people to attach. You are trying to get them to produce fruit they are incapable of because they aren’t attatched.”

            Have you read Paul Tripp? He makes this point very well. I went to his talks when he visited my hometown.

    • Mary says:

      Thanks, Mara. That’s a helpful distinction.

      • Mara says:

        I suppose I should say, for the sake of fairness that doesn’t seem to be held in high esteem by a certain few fellows around here, that it is also in the best interest of all women and children for MEN to avoid sex before marriage. :/ ;)

        • I’m extremely, extremely passionate about male chastity. I would recommend to women NOT TO MARRY a man who is unchaste. Demand to know all of his past girlfriends, and interview them about his ability to control himself. If he drinks and fools around, kick him to the curb – he’s not able to fulfill traditional male roles. To protect a woman emotionally, a man has to have self-control and be able to love up a storm during the courtship. Demand the evidence that he can serve you sacrificially and exclusively and get nothing in return but recognition and respect. The courtship is the time to run him through the wringer.

          • Mary says:

            Right. Now you’re talkin’.

          • Mara says:

            That’s why I knew I could say what I said freely.
            There is a reason the Bible says not to commit fornication and adultery. I destroys lives. It destroys nations whether committed by men or women or both.

  11. I think we are getting away from the topic of the post, though. The topic of the post is how bad single motherhood is for children and how feminism encourages it by telling women that men aren’t necessary, that sex before marriage is OK, and that there are no roles that men are intended to fill that women have to evaluate them for. It’s an anti-feminist, pro-marriage, pro-child post. I argued that feminism opposes chastity, and opposes sex roles for men, and opposes marriage, and that this results in more single motherhood, which harms children. I urged women to reject feminism because of the harm it causes children when adults act selfishly and recklessly.

    • Mary says:

      This is all good. I agree! :)

      My only objection was to Coulter’s hyperbolic equating of not giving up one’s child for adoption with child abuse. I think it weakens the point. I actually think it would have been a stronger post if you’d written what you wanted to say yourself.

      • Mike Singer says:

        Investigation of the Coulter’s reasoning for offering the children up for adoption is very sound as well as your reason for singles mothers keeping the children (I do agree it is situational based and there are a few exceptions). Here is one and please note the self sacrifice.

        My mother left my father after a domestic violence incident. He died shortly thereafter from alcoholism. My mother went back to school at 48 (San Diego State University) to receive her teaching degree while working full time and taking care of my brother, grandmother (dementia), and myself. She never dated, unselfish, and was a very Godly woman. She did whatever needed to be done for us and all of us are college educated ( sister- phd) brother – mechanical eng), me (business). We didn’t have a lot but we had food, clothing, shelter, and a Godly upbringing (God provided 2 men as a example of how a man should be and I am thankful for. However, the understanding of it came later rather than sooner. Regardless, I am thankful and do my best to be a quick learner rather than a late adopter.

        So there are “exceptions to the rule”. By the law of statistics, we should have never made it out of the ghettos in Detriot, MI. This could have all been avoided if my mom would have listened to her father and not have married my father (her only error imo).

        However, this is where the fatal flaw is for the majority of “situations”.

        How can one ask a irrational adult to act responsibly and unselfishly ?

        • “This could have all been avoided if my mom would have listened to her father and not have married my father (her only error imo). ”

          That’s what I am trying to highlight. Every daughter needs a father, and it’s the future mother’s job to choose him for that role. Not to say that men have no roles, and that they are just for entertainment – which is exactly what feminism says.

          • Mara says:

            Not every form of feminism.
            Just certain extreme forms of feminism.
            Those exteme forms of feminism are often the results of women being abused by men.
            Just as many of the members of men’s rights activist groups that want to take us back to the victorian age and strip women of any and all rights, including the right to vote are often made of up men who either had abusive mothers or experienced terribly nasty divorces, or both.
            Extreme forms of anything are bad.

            Mike, I applaud your mother, a survivor and thriver and provider and protector. She’s a hero.
            Often she’s the type of woman I’m thinking of when I get angry at men who say that single mothers are single handedly destroying western civilization as we know it.

            Sorry, there are simply far to many variables to make these slapdash and shallow assessments.

  12. Mike Singer says:

    Mara,

    i agree with you. My mom is simply amazing woman. I am simply amazed by how God has worked in her, through her, and has kept her over the years.

    However, I believe she is the “exception to the rule” (She has always been a “truth seeker” ) and makes no excuses and takes full responsibility / integrity and is a real deal Christian disciple.

    I havent seen this in the majority of Christians. If men & women dont take their role in relationships and put Christ first- then it simply wont work.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Click to see recent visitors

  Visitors Online Now

Page views since 1/30/09

  • 4,690,053 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,275 other followers

Archives

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,275 other followers

%d bloggers like this: