Why Are We Undermining the Family?

By | May 20, 2019 | 1 Comments

This also necessitates the dissolution of the single family as society’s economic unit…The care and upbringing of children becomes a public matter. – Friedrich Engels, “The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State,” 1884.

That the family is under assault is hardly news. The process has been going on since the foundation of communism by Marx and Engels. If you doubt this, check the rates of divorce − and of people who never marry, so they don’t add to divorce statistics but go from one relationship to another. Check the rate of births to single mothers – it is now 40% of all births. Watch movies and TV and see marriage belittled, ridiculed, or just ignored.

Sometimes we need to remind ourselves of ongoing processes. Otherwise, like the proverbial frog, we will not sense gradual changes and end up cooked.

If you’re grounded, sue your parents.

A 12-year-old Canadian girl was told by her father that she could not go on a school trip. This was punishment for the girl’s posting photos of herself on a dating website. The father believed her action was inappropriate for a 12-year-old − and could be dangerous − but the girl did so regardless.

The girl’s parents are divorced (surprise!), and the father has custody. But the girl stormed out and went to live with her mother. The father then was amazed to receive notice that his daughter was suing him. The judge ruled that the punishment was too strict. She added that the three-day trip was an important milestone − graduation from primary school.

This case raises questions:

● If so minor a punishment as grounding becomes a matter for judicial review, what parental decision can ever be final − or even taken seriously?

● If graduation from primary school is an important life event requiring judicial intervention, what of graduation from high school − will the Canadian Supreme Court be sufficient, or will the U.N. have to get involved?

● Divorce is traumatic enough for children. Must courts barge in where they are not needed and make a difficult situation even worse?

● If parents no longer have authority over their children, how can they have responsibility for them? The father in this case already answered the question − he refuses to have his daughter live with him any longer. If the mother proves unsuited to raise her, let the judge do so. If the judge makes the decisions, she should be responsible for the consequences.

● If a father is forbidden to protect his child from danger, what good is he? The ultimate effect of the court’s decision is not to liberate children, but to devalue parents, especially fathers. It would be folly to assume that this effect is unintended.

● If parents lost the right to ground their child for three days, is it surprising that they now lose the right to decide whether their young child should have gender-altering medication or surgery, if the child goes through a phase of gender dysphoria? In what sense are they still parents, rather than mere providers of money to be spent on their child as the “authorities” decide? And what if the phase passes, as it often does, and the young person yearns to resume the biological gender? Who is responsible for relieving the misery that results?

Supporting the traditional family is an “act.”

Some time ago, Ann Coulter went on “The View,” the daytime TV show. As expected, she faced a hostile panel and a hostile audience. But the nature of the hostility was revealing.

Coulter cited statistics showing that boys raised by single mothers are far more likely to be involved in juvenile and adult crime and to wind up in prison. She cited the fact that the rate of single motherhood has been rising alarmingly. The panelists attacked her personally, but without refuting a single one of her demonstrable facts.

Liberals attack the messenger when they are unable to disprove the message. But Whoopie Goldberg went further. She referred to Coulter’s position on the traditional family as an “act.” Conservatives believe liberals are sincere but mistaken, naïve, or even foolish. But liberals believe conservatives are not only evil but also insincere. They believe conservatives are in the pay of oil companies, drug companies, or other nefarious influences.

Liberating 31 million Afghans from homicidal tyrants? No, it’s “all about oil.” What oil? Encouraging development of lifesaving drugs? No, it’s “all about Big Pharma.” Supporting the traditional family and its proven advantages for children? No, it’s just an “act.” Liberals believe that no one could disagree with them without being paid off. That is pure egotism and arrogance.

The “life” of Julia.

Do you remember Julia? I do, though I wish I could forget her. Julia was the fictional character in the government video that glorified (surprise!) government.

The Life of Julia” boasts about how then-President Obama would help a fictional woman named Julia – help her all the way from preschool at age three to retirement at age 67. Is it a coincidence that “Julia” is also the name of the girlfriend of the protagonist in Orwell’s “1984”? Perhaps, perhaps not.

The video mentions Julia’s parents only when she is a child – she never cares for them when they grow old. It shows her going through life without a husband or life partner. It shows her having a son without mention of his father, much less of marriage. It shows her working without friends or colleagues, and starting her own business without a business partner or employees. It shows her retiring on Social Security, but without mention of her own savings, much less of her son or other family members helping out.

Julia goes through life alone – except for the government. How indescribably sad.

The video shows how all phases of Julia’s life will be benefitted by the government. It shows how Julia – and presumably all women – should live as if they were married to the government. How patriarchal. And it shows how independent citizens should become infantilized subjects, dependent on a parentified government to make the decisions of daily life for them. How totalitarian.

The bottom line:

(1)  Weaken the family by belittling it and encouraging single motherhood.

(2)  Convince women to substitute the government for a man to support them and their children.

(3)  Weaken the right of parents to bring up their children as they think best.

(4)  Convince people to substitute the government as the arbiter of child rearing.

(5)  Ignore the bad effects of fatherlessness on children and on society.

(6)  Insult those who point out these bad effects.

(7)  Impugn the sincerity of those who support the traditional family.

(8)  Condemn those who support the traditional family as “un-American.”

But what will (9) be? Punishing those who support the traditional family for “hate speech”? Censoring criticism of liberal policies on radio and TV? I don’t know. But I do know there will be a (9), and then a (10).

Leftism is not a goal that can be achieved. It is an ongoing process that never ends. Like spoiled children, leftists are never satisfied and always demand more. After 74 years, the leaders of the Soviet Union still claimed to be “building socialism.” They hadn’t got it quite right yet. And then the Soviet Union collapsed. Does that tell you something?

If you want to bring down a house, undermine the foundation. If you want to bring down a nation or a civilization, do the same.

Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

Social Widgets powered by AB-WebLog.com.