|
Let's hear it for fathers. But hurry, because fairly soon it might be politically incorrect, and then perhaps illegal to speak out and cheer for them, as it will be deemed insulting to those who have made children deliberately fatherless.
Our government here in Britain has just passed legislation affirming the rights of lesbians to become pregnant through artificial insemination without any need for the child to know any father-figure or father-substitute at all.
The idea, you see, is that the rights of a person wanting the child override any other rights that might exist in this scenario, including the rights of the child himself.
The child, I need hardly say, doesn't even have the right to be born, since the promoters of this loathsome law are also unanimous in their support for Britain's savage abortion law, which permits abortion virtually on demand and ensures that it is funded by the public, under slogans about "a woman's right to choose."
All this at a time when the problems of the fatherless -- some 50 percent of all children born in Britain this year will be born out of wedlock, and most of those will lose all contact with their fathers before their childhood years are spent -- have never been greater or more obvious. It's become almost a cliché for commentators to note the need for boys to have some sort of role model (male teachers or youth leaders or similar), in order to give them confidence and aspirations.
It's widely recognized that being a single mother is astonishingly difficult, even though any and every official comment on the subject has to be accompanied by the routine words that "most of them do a wonderful job." It's known that our current divorce laws cruelly deprive fathers of their rights -- often forcing children to live with the mother even when they have expressed a desire not to do so, and when they dislike and even fear her new boyfriend and want to remain close to their own father.
What is happening in Britain is unjust and is leading to terrible consequences. The sullen gangs of young people loitering around our shopping centers on Saturday nights, the fights that break out -- 15 fatal stabbings in London alone so far this year, and we haven't reached the peak summer season yet -- and the thefts and muggings, assaults on the elderly and frail, verbal abuse to passers-by, vandalism and graffiti, are all evidence of a broken society. The vast majority of young people convicted of violent crime come from what are coyly referred to as "dysfunctional" homes. They are the dispossessed -- unsure, often enough, even of their own surname. They desperately need what every previous generation regarded as the norm: a mum and dad, united for life, in a family team.
But even to talk about fathers and the crucial necessity of encouraging stable family life based on marriage is to court savage criticism in any public debate. Socially, too, it's becoming unacceptable to talk about gratitude to your father. Images of fathers in advertisements are rarely positive -- often they are portrayed as fools or dupes. It's considered normal to suggest that many, perhaps most, fathers in previous generations were unjust disciplinarians, cruel, twisted, lacking in affection, unemotional, failing to bond with their offspring.
Well, my father wasn't like that. He belonged to a generation that simply looked and sounded different from most people around in Britain today -- he had a moustache and a war record, was sincerely patriotic, had a terrific sense of humor, believed in God, tried to be decent to everyone, and loved his family dearly.
He was huge fun -- my mother still smiles at the recollection of the way he could make the whole family laugh together, and we still swap memories of his jokes and stories. He was someone on whom you could rely: dependable, reassuring. He was capable: He made and mended things, organized family trips to the seaside, coped with crises. He was hugely affectionate; when we were small he would swoop us up in the air and down again (known in the family as doing a "whoop"), and all our lives there were plenty of hugs.
He was of the generation that returned from war and wanted nothing more than to settle and raise a happy family, who in turn would do large and useful things and have lots of glad adventures. Of course, that meant plenty of tensions once we reached the teenage years -- his generation simply wasn't prepared for the era of pop, pot, and the pill. But the affection never wavered, and his own values and sense of right and wrong were communicated to us in such a way that, when growing up, I had a strong sense of not wanting to let him down -- not a bad restraint on teenage behavior.
Good fatherhood is passed on down the generations. My brother, himself a father and father-in-law, is also now a grandfather. Dependability, sacrifice for a family's needs, affection, and the communication of the joys of life aren't impossible to teach and share. Millions have done it. Why aren't we allowed to celebrate that?
The Members of Parliament who voted so enthusiastically for homsexuals' rights to override those of children were apparently quite happy to destroy this sort of heritage. And yet they themselves have benefited from it: They all grew up in a Britain formally structured on male/female marriage and the traditional family unit. They aren't volunteering themselves -- or their own children -- for a massive social experiment. Just other children, in a future for which they won't be responsible.
Who will pick up the broken pieces of a wretched and miserable society? The Church, we hope, will be there to cope. Bruised and battered by internal conflicts, denigrated by the mass media, smaller in numbers than we would wish, but still there -- the Catholic Church with an apostolic faith passed on down the generations.
It's notable that, in an age where fatherhood has been denigrated and when so many young people have been left bereft, the image of the pope as a father has been notable and popular. There were all sorts of reasons for those vast cheering crowds that greeted Pope John Paul II, and now stand cheering "Benedetto," but assuredly a part of the whole thing is the reassurance of that kindly, capable, authority-but-with-a- warm-smile figure that Peter's successor conveys. True fatherhood has a gentleness about it, a sense of passed-on wisdom, a sense of sacrifice. It's not sentimental. It carries real responsibilities. It involves a very subtle sense of distance, which makes it different from motherhood. It carries messages about courage and hope and aspiration.
One of the last people to speak publicly about the role of a father in a very personal sense was Britain's first female Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. She was unashamedly grateful to her father -- a grocer who rose to become an alderman and in due course mayor of Grantham, a leading figure in the local Methodist church, and a father who took great care to ensure that his daughters received a good education and the best possible start in life. Standing on the steps of 10 Downing Street, she was asked about any childhood memories or special thoughts at this historic moment, and she spoke of her father with warm affection and gratitude.
Alderman and Mrs. Roberts did an excellent job in raising their children, and Britain benefited. Most of us also look back with grateful affection to our parents. On my wedding day, as I walked into the church on my father's arm, I stopped to give him a hug and thank him for the lovely home and childhood he'd given me, all the things he'd done for me. Then I wished I hadn't, because of course it meant that both of us entered the church gulping back emotional tears. I hummed to him the opening bars of his regimental march, while everyone else was singing "Praise, my soul, the king of Heaven." I needn't have worried. His arm, as always, was firm to grip and his step unwavering and reassuring.
Embarking on the great adventures of life, the best gift you can have is good parents.
Joanna Bogle is an author and broadcaster living in London.
Readers have left 12 comments. Quote(1) Nice, Breezy Article with SubstanceJune 14th, 2008 | 6:22am As a dad, all I can say is, "Here, here!" Quote(2) UntitledJune 14th, 2008 | 9:26am Even as marketers are missing the boat, fathers are stepping up to the plate, at least in the US. A University of Maryland study found American fathers today spend double the time with their kids compared to thirty years ago.
As for the media, do ad people really think they're selling to men the way they depict them? Quote(3) missouriJune 14th, 2008 | 11:04am I;ll claim being from the show me state on Todd's contention that across the board children aee revceiving more attention from theif dads than 30 years ago. Can you cite a source for me Todd?
Quote(4) UntitledJune 14th, 2008 | 12:23pm How about here:
http://tinyurl.com/6ms33m Quote(5) Todd!June 15th, 2008 | 8:41am Todd!
The study begins with a re-definition of fatherhood. They are not studying the input into a child's life by the biological father, but by any male who appens to live in the house. Now the time spent with stepdad is treated as the equivalent,, even though (according to this article) such relationships are 40 times more likely to result in abuse.
So, why the optimism? This is one of the saddest articles I can imagine. Social scientists studying the decay of the family with such detachment, as if the material they are hamdling were not extremely bad news for kids. Sure there is a bit of a silver lining, because some people do the right thing, but all in all, the harm done to children by the decay of marriage is catastrophic.
Are you the same Todd who wrote that article extolling the virtues of being a progressive Catholic without providing much by way of example to show what that would mean in concrete situations?
with friendly greetings,
unasancta
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Quote(6) UntitledJune 15th, 2008 | 11:10am This thread typifies the ADD nature of many blog discussions. One person makes a claim someone else finds not credible. The original claim is supported and explained. A third person finds another problem, off-topic, and the whole thing becomes an exercise in mob mentality.
Tom, with reciprocal friendly greetings, I would suggest you find your kids or your dad, or both, and just enjoy what you can today before the end of Western civilization.
"So, why the optimism?"
Because fathers of the current generation are spending twice as much time with their kids as thirty years ago.
"This is one of the saddest articles I can imagine. Social scientists studying the decay of the family with such detachment ..."
Yes, I suppose it's sad for some that scientists are unwilling to join the lynch mob. I suppose it's the price to pay for studying social situations before one foams at the mouth with one's criticisms.
With respect to your comment about biological fathers, there are two more important fathering relationships we experience. The first is with God. And the second is being real. I am not a biological father, and you do not know the particulars of my daughter's family of origin. But I am a real father, and that relationship supercedes biology.
The argument for "biologicality" is overblown. If we were simple animals, we would be defined by genetics and rearing. But as human beings, we are made in God's image, and thus capable of God's efforts in adoption, reality, and especially love.
Happy Fathers Day to all, biological and otherwise. Quote(7) FatherhoodJune 15th, 2008 | 2:51pm Todd -
With reference to your quote "
"This thread typifies the ADD nature of many blog discussions. One person makes a claim someone else finds not credible. The original claim is supported and explained. A third person finds another problem, off-topic, and the whole thing becomes an exercise in mob mentality"
Don't you believe in free speech? The blogger "unasancta" is expressing his opinion. Because his views differ from yours doesn't mean they are less valid than yours. Grow up, Todd- up need to listen to differing points of view with at least some respect. It's called MATURITY!
Quote(8) UntitledJune 15th, 2008 | 5:18pm "Don't you believe in free speech?"
Of course I do. Tom and I are both free to offer opinions. We're also free to disagree with each other, and tell why we do so. Quote(9) Joy from Joanna; Silliness from ToddJune 16th, 2008 | 11:40am Bravo, Joanna. I welled up reading the account of your wedding day.
Brian,
Must you continue to permit Todd to foul the nest of Inside Catholic's comment boxes? He has virtually nothing to add that your readers couldn't find in the op ed pages of a secular newspaper. Quote(10) good pointsJune 16th, 2008 | 2:50pm What kills me is the point you make (in the article) that extolling fatherhood is no longer socially acceptable. Whenever I speak positively about the traditional family, my not so traditional inlaws say, "Well easy for you to say, you're married. Other people aren't so lucky." I'm always amazed. Of course we're still married after 15 years and with 5 children because we work hard at it. My husband is a good father because he works darn hard at it. It's incredibly hard work for him, to be the calm disciplinarian, gentle guide, warm support, etc, all day and sometimes all night. There is no element of luck, just commitment and hard work.
My own brother left his wife soon after the birth of their first child. I'm heartbroken for my nephew and for my sister in law who I love. We do all we can for them, but it is astonishingly difficult for her to raise him by herself. This is a choice he made, to abandon his child. But in our society, it's so normal, he feels no shame.
Hurrah for the father who loves his children enough to stay married (or even marry) their mother. That shows true love. Tatooing the name of your child on your biceps while you go on your merry way doesn't count.
Quote(11) Todd Has Been Unfairly Treated...June 23rd, 2008 | 4:50pm ...or at least that's my judgment.
Todd offered a citation which (arguably) supported his reason for optimism.
unasancta says the article redefined fatherhood a bit broadly. Fair enough...but it's it likely that most of the fathers in the study were of a traditional type. And isn't it likely that a majority of the adoptive fathers, or even stepfathers, were also good fathers?
When you lump those groups together, you wind up with a report that's probably still statistically significant, even if you think a sliver of the data is erroneous.
That might be a reason to qualify or dampen optimism stemming from the article, but not to discount it altogether.
And, Bridget: Todd's rejoinder to "Don't you believe in free speech?" was right on the money. You walked into that one. It is a common left-liberal (apologies to you Todd, but in my experience this is accurate) error to say something outlandish, wait for someone to contradict or question you, and then label the critic as impeding your free speech. Let's not replicate an error which aggravates us when we're on the receiving end of it!
To Rich, re: "Must you continue to permit...": Now, that's treading closer to impeding free speech. Now, even banning Todd would not impede his freedom of speech: He has no inherent right to post here any more than you or I do.
But banning him would be churlish, it would be nekulturny. And, it would be an (unjustified!) sign of intellectual insecurity in the strength of one's own arguments.
He who has truth on his side need only fear the purveyor of falsehood or illogic if his own debating skills are inferior. For of course between two debaters of equal skill, the one whose arguments are best-grounded in reality will win.
I would say that, even if Todd were one of those self-caricaturing minions on DemocraticUnderground.com, for whom flippancy is a replacement for courtesy, and paranoia, for intellect.
But he is not. In my experience Todd is entirely civil and gracious, even on that occasion when his failure to rigidly define the term "progressive" left the meaning of his piece ambiguous and critical thinkers gritting their teeth.
Finally, has none of the three of you noticed the somewhat pro-traditionalist observation Todd made; namely, that mainstream media advertisers tend to portray men in general and fathers in particular as buffoons, and how in the heck "do ad people really think they're selling to men the way they depict them?"
As a bit of a conservative/traditionalist myself, I'm happy to find a little daylight about which to be optimistic that our cultural trends aren't 100% gloom-an'-doom. Even if it's qualified optimism.
But I'm even more happy to have an opportunity to defend someone with whom I might usually disagree (Todd). After all, I wouldn't want him to get the same kinds of notions about conservatives and traditionalists that I have about leftists.
Would you? Quote(12) EqualityJune 25th, 2008 | 11:27am Here in California, both "Mom" AND "Dad" have been banned from use in public schools.
At least the women get equal rights. |
