10 August 2007

Disappearing Fathers

Hollywood rarely gets it right.

The LibTards who write, direct, produce and star in most Hollywood productions want to directly influence the way you think. It is a subtle form of brainwashing. They know that if they show you images over and over again, you'll be desensitized and your thinking will shift ever so slightly to align with the movie, ad or tv show's message.

Take for example homosexuality. Back in the day men and women were ashamed to expose their lifestyle to the harsh light of day because they'd be criticized for it. It wasn't the criticism, per se, that inhibited them. It was in internalized sense of shame that also contributed to their reticence. It was called deviant behavior back them, for a very good reason. Being gay isn't a liberating event - it is an obstacle. Almost every gay person I know is secretly miserable. It is a lonely landscape that meets the average gay man or woman. Intrigue, pettiness, superficiality, sexual encounters devoid of meaning, voracious licentiousness and artifice are common in the gay community. To be honest, there is much of that in the straight community but my observations lead me to conclude that it is more rampant within the ranks of the gay community.

But you'd never know that by watching television. Shows like Will and Grace show the lifestyle to be cheeky and cool. Fleeting homosexual encounters are portrayed as fun and filled with abandon. Did they ever show an episode where Jack, the flamboyantly gay character, felt saddened by his unending stream of empty sexual enounters with multiple partners? Did the show's writers ever decide to show the downside to being a sexual addict?

No. That'd hardly be cricket, eh mate?

And not to be to harsh on the Gay Mafia and its insidious Pink Hand, let's look at the Myth of The Single Mother.

Since the 1950's television portrayed families as being composed a mother and a father. Nowadays they've got families being raised by older brothers (Party of Five). I remember that during one episode of Friends, Jennifer Aniston's character became pregnant and declared triumphantly that she was going to raise the baby on her own! The declaration was met by resounding applause from the live studio audience.

I could just see the effette Libbies in the audience fawning over themselves and breathlessly exclaiming, "Oh Morris, how wonderful! She's going to have the baby by herself!" The unspoken assumption being: You don't need a man in today's society. To coin Irina Dunn's famous utterance - "A woman needs a Man like a fish needs a bicycle." Oh what wit she possessed.

Or Candace Bergden's portrayal of Murphy Brown - that seasoned, single mother who was sharp, witty, professional, affluent and all together. She could seemingly do it all. She could put every man in his place, get the work done, be home making dinner for the 2 year old fertilized embryo and then have time to chat up her girlfriend until 2am.

Our Hollyweird fools act like being a single mom a choice. Well I'm not convinced.

Sadly we see that holding the single Mom lifestyle up as a sacred, almost honorable, pursuit has gotten society into an unexpected dilemma. As a case in point, City Journal published this piece to highlight the enormous negative impact that single parenthood has had on the city of Newark, NJ. Newark's murder rate remains one of the highest in the nation. (two arrests were made in the execution-style murders from last week.)

According to 2005 figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, only 32 percent of Newark children are being raised by their parents in a two-adult household. The rest are distributed among families led by grandparents, foster parents, and single parents—mostly mothers. An astonishing 60 percent of the city’s kids are growing up without fathers. It isn’t that traditional families are breaking up; they aren’t even getting started. The city has one of the highest out-of-wedlock birthrates in the country, with about 65 percent of its children born to unmarried women. And 70 percent of those births are to women who are already poor, meaning that their kids are born directly into poverty.
The economic consequences of these numbers are unsettling, since single parenthood is a road to lasting poverty in America today. In Newark, single parents head 83 percent of all families living below the poverty line. If you are a child born into a single-parent family in Newark, your chances of winding up in poverty are better than one in five, but if you are born into a two-parent family, those chances drop to just one in twelve.
And the social consequences are even more disturbing. Research conducted in the 1990s found that a child born out of wedlock was three times more likely to drop out of school than the average child, and far more likely to wind up on welfare as an adult. Studies have also found that about 70 percent of the long-term prisoners in our jails, those who have committed the most violent crimes, grew up without fathers.


The police see day in and day out the results of this ridiculous coddling that the single parent "community" has gotten. Every time we get to interview an offender or talk to a woman whose kid is acting up, the officer's first question is "Where is the boy's father". 90% of the time Dad is out of the picture.

This is why I cannot stand Liberalism as a societal policy. It is not founded in stability. It is based almost entirely on feelings. It is an empty moonscape of loose morals, anything goes behavior and non-judgementalism. You can do anything you want and you're not criticized for it. You can even marry a dolphin and no one questions your sanity.

So we'll continue to talk around the topic and not discuss the heart of the matter when it comes to crime - single parents and uninvolved fathers.

There are days in which I wake up and wonder what kind of crazy, warped rabbit hole have we fallen into. It is something out of Alice in Wonderland.

2 comments:

Coldtype said...

Hello Rue, I see you're still beating your neo-con tom-toms. Good, I’ll need someone to kick around now that the Boys of SCC have banned me from their "debate" club. Fortunately, I’m in the habit of saving posts I submit in separate files so a record exists of what was or was not written if controversy arises. This is just such a moment.

I don’t know much about your background Rue but my understanding of debate differs radically from that of SCC. The way I was trained in the art of debate throughout my academic career was to present evidence in support of my arguments and—at minimum—to expect the same from the party holding an opposing view. It was generally accepted that conditions for debate were NOT met when parties were excluded from presenting their positions on a given topic for reasons as arbitrary as “you annoy me” or “you’re a contrarian”, in other words, the very reasons the SCC moderators gave for their cowardly decision to ban by posts from their blog. If they didn’t feel sufficiently capable of challenging my positions [and they were not] I would have had far greater respect for them if they simply admitted this fact.

Since you were kind enough to engage me at the Lair, I will return the favor by sharing with you the posts of whose relative merits SCC didn’t have enough respect for you or the rest of their readers to judge for yourselves. The first unpublished post was in response to SCC’s initial announcement of my ban [“To Our Readers” 10 Aug 07]. The second unpublished post was in response to SCC’s taunting and idiotically triumphant post announcing the arrest of the suspects in the Curry and Walker robberies [“SCC- Correct Again”]. Of course you are already familiar with my posts—also unpublished—regarding that incident in my “Obama-Bad-Ass” thread).
********************************
Post I

“…the poster called "coldtype" has continued to annoy us, repeating tired arguments and lies from the DU and Kos, taking contrarian positions just to provoke, and generally just being an asshat. Anything under his moniker is hereby banned for the time being”—SCC

Since I’m getting the bum’s rush I may as well go out the way I came in—deconstructing yet another of your specious arguments:

"coldtype" has continued to annoy us, repeating tired arguments and lies from the DU and Kos”—SCC

First of all I have no idea what the “DU” even is but if it’s anything remotely similar to the Daily Kos (light-hitting, center/left stances on US imperialism with endless paeans to the Democratic Party) you’ve got the wrong man. Trust me SCC, nothing I’ve posted on this site has anything in common with organizations whose idea of “progressivism” begins and ends with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. My position on these war-mongering, corporate whores should be fairly clear by now. You don’t make sense.

If by my “tired arguments” and “lies” you are referring to my unceasing attacks on Team Bush and its monumentally criminal, mass-murderous war of imperial aggression on the people of Iraq…well I’ve got an awful lot of company. Have you seen the polls lately? We’re talking about a man (GWB) with approval ratings in the TWENTIES. And that’s just in America—world-wide I’m not sure he reaches the teens. Surely you don’t think the policies of your hero have ENHANCED the standing of our country? If so then you’re further gone than I’d imagined.

“…taking contrarian positions just to provoke”—SCC

This is perhaps your most perplexing charge against me. Contraian positions? You mean positions in opposition to the ravings of racists? Even you had to admit that the goofs ranting about “animals” on the west side were beyond the pale—yet you censored MY posts on that thread. Curious.

By “contraian positions” you cannot POSSIBLY be referring to my oposition to the US assault on Iraq. Only the ENTIRE WORLD opposes this crime—in addition to the majority of the US population, it’s not a secret fellas, every poll of US and world opinion confirms it. I’m sorry guys but that one leaves me scratching my head as well.

You seem to take particular umbrage whenever I attack The Decider but the last time I checked his approval rating was hovering around 29%. Do you mean to suggest then that 71% of the US population and perhaps 90% of the world consists of “contraians”? My take on Bush (uncontroversially the worst president in our nation’s history) would appear to be quite mainstream. Again, you don’t make sense.

“The liberal stuff, we've been filtering out because it contributes nothing to the debate…”—SCC

Are you at all familier with the concept of debate? A debate is not a conversation between two parties in perfect agreement. Debate ONLY exists in an environment where opposing viewpoints ARE ALLOWED! It is therefore completely illogical to state that the conditions for debate are ideal if, and only if, all the parties are of the same mind on the issue at hand. No my wayward friend, what you suggest is not debate but a circle-jerk. If THAT’S all you’ve got to offer then by all means count me out.

Stay safe.
*********************************

Post II

"We started taking hits in the comments section from the recently banned "coldtype" about us making overly broad statements"—SCC

Perhaps the fault is mine. It would appear that I attribute to you a level of intelligence that you quite simply do not possess. Let's go through it again shall we?

“Anyone wonder if it could have anything to do with.., oh let's just say, certain gang affiliations? Yeah, we don't wonder either”—SCC

By “it” you refer to the robberies [is any of this familiar] of Walker and Curry. You then follow this with the statement [your words not mine] “oh let’s just say, certain gang affiliations?”. Am I right so far? Ok.

By using the phrase “gang affiliations” following your descriptive imagery regarding the “high wealth and high spending sports figures who are more likely to have large amounts of cash lying around”, the implication is that CURRY AND WALKER HAVE GANG AFFILIATIONS. If this was NOT the impression you meant to convey then you should have clairfied the matter when I asked you to do so in my (unpublished) post.

The fact that the SUSPECTS were gang members is completely irrelevent to my posts. MY POINT WAS THAT NEITHER CURRY OR WALKER WERE GANG MEMBERS IDIOTS!

Forgive me. I rarely get angry with you SCC but I happen to think this is important.

You, by IMPLYING that Curry and Walker may have had “certain gang affiliations” without supporting evidence for such suspicions, were using rhetoric commonly attributed to racists who make the black + youth + wealth = gangbanger/criminal equation. Curry and Walker were the VICTIMS of violent gang members, not gangbangers themselves. Do you understand the difference?

I’ll conclude with a minor criticism and I don’t wish for you to take it the wrong way for it is constructive. Let me first be clear, I do not and have never believed YOU to be racists, but unfortunately SCC you don’t write very well nor do you READ very well and I’m afraid both are essential if it’s your intention to communicate effectively—at least in a public forum. My suggestion is that you get your hands on the collected essays of George Orwell, a powerful political writer whose cultural observations are among the most penetrating in the english language. His most important essay in this regard is “Politics and the English Language”—read it. I promise Orwell will make you a better writer and a better thinker. Be well.


-Coldtype

So that’s that my neo-con friend. Look for more from me soon, particularly on that wonderful quote you provided from Dostoyevsky and how it relates to the threat American Empire poses to our liberty—in fact the very survival of our species.

Stay safe.

rosco said...

Man, this coldtype guy is full of hot air.