Bastard Nation

Pages: 1 2

The New York Times reports that 53 percent of babies delivered to women under the age of 30—the prime motherhood demographic—enter the world without their parents married to one another. But it’s not the rise of illegitimacy that scandalizes sex scribbler Katie Roiphe. It is the newspaper’s “peculiar moral undertone.”

“[M]arriage is very rapidly becoming only one way to raise children,” Roiphe explains at Slate, noting that “other countries are obviously way ahead of the United States in incorporating a rational recognition of the vicissitudes of love, and the varieties of family life, into cultural attitudes toward unmarried parents.” The peculiar immoral undertone in Roiphe’s plea to deny children a two-parent home stems in part from her bringing two children into the world fathered by different men, neither of whom remains in a relationship with the writer. The personal is political.

“Of course, one of the reasons children born outside of marriage suffer is the culturally ubiquitous idea that there is something wrong or abnormal about their situation,” Roiphe contends. “Once it becomes clear that there is, at least, nothing abnormal about their situation, i.e. when this 53 percent of babies born to women under 30 come of age in the majority, the psychological landscape, at least, will be vastly transformed.” But in the communities most ravaged by drugs, drop outs, crime, and other social ills, single-parent households are the norm. Does Roiphe really believe that there is a stigma to unwed mothers in Detroit, where the illegitimacy rate is 85 percent? Out-of-wedlock births have been commonplace there for years. So have murder, crack, illiterate high school students, homelessness, etc.

The Times dares make the connection between the former and the latter. “The shift is affecting children’s lives,” report Jason DeParle and Sabrina Tavernise in the offending piece. “Researchers have consistently found that children born outside marriage face elevated risks of falling into poverty, failing in school or suffering emotional and behavioral problems.” Indeed, William Bennett’s Index of Leading Cultural Indicators reported that children from single-parent homes were more likely to drop out of school, use illegal narcotics, and become incarcerated than their peers from nuclear families. That report came out eighteen years ago, when the illegitimacy rate hovered around thirty percent.

Nearly three decades before that, when illegitimacy stood at about 10 percent, Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously warned of the dangers of the disintegration of the nuclear family, particularly as it pertained to black Americans. “At the heart of the deterioration of the fabric of Negro society is the deterioration of the Negro family,” Moynihan wrote when African American illegitimacy approached 25 percent (it now approaches 75 percent). “It is the fundamental source of the weakness of the Negro community at the present time.” His report continued that “at the center of the tangle of pathology is the weakness of the family structure. Once or twice removed, it will be found to be the principal source of most of the aberrant, inadequate, or antisocial behavior that did not establish, but now serves to perpetuate the cycle of poverty and deprivation.” The total illegitimacy rate now exceeds 40 percent, significantly higher than the alarming rate for African Americans in the mid-1960s that Moynihan wrote about.

Pages: 1 2

  • Amused

    " Bastard Nation " is it ? Another convoluted diatribe about what ? What's the "tie-in " ? Sexual Liberation ? Single-Motherhood =Feminist ?
    There are most likely millions of single moms who would diagree ….but their too busy .

    • Matt

      Learn to spell and make sentences and then come back to make a comment. No wonder this country is going down the tubes when amused people like you can't even speak proper English. You remind me of idiots who go on Maury with their dumb attitudes and out of wedlock taxpayer funded bastard babies.

      • Amused

        Assuming you're not the idiot you portray yourself to be ….I think you got the jist of what I'm saying .LOL….and as far as Maury , I'll bet you'll find that most of those jerks would be calling themselves Republican .

        • Amused

          Matt I would place you in the same category as that imbecile Representative , who claimed the GSA are hand in hand with Planned Parenthood . LOL….and "he got proof " !! He said go investigate on the internet !! Think maybe he went to a website like this one ……run along little boy .

          • Wideband

            Was that an "and another thing" post, Shrill? Just like you – pointless.

          • Amused

            What's that you say echo ? Wanna chime in about a mispelled word too , or do you actually have anything intelligent to say ? Naaaaaa .

    • badofdirt

      I'm amused by your illogical mind and insanity. Where did you come from?

    • jenifer

      8" android tabletsFord’s lack of interest in safeguarding America’s national security stems from its distrust in the idea of the nation itself. In 1998, the Ford Foundation made a six-year, $25 million commitment to a project called “Crossing Borders: Revitalizing Area Studies” which focused on supporting international programs at major universities. In announcing the new initiative, Ford emphasized, “the theme of interconnections rather than fixed identities underlies many Crossing Borders projects.”[24]

  • ajweberman

    More gangbangers without disciple. America is going to hell.

    • Rifleman

      The funny thing is, one of the reasons they join gangs is for structure and discipline. Most lack it at home, so they create their own. America may be headed that way but She doesn't have to go there.

  • Donla

    Yup, he's right -there are othr ways to raise kids than in marriage.

    I suspect the socialist "village" could raise these kids to be as morally corrupted as their village raised parents are….

  • tagalog

    Roife says, “other countries are obviously way ahead of the United States in incorporating a rational recognition of the vicissitudes of love, and the varieties of family life, into cultural attitudes toward unmarried parents.”

    How far ahead IS that? What varieties of family life, other than the two-parent home (with one male and one female parent), are there that are an improvement over the heterosexual nuclear/extended family for either the children or the parents? What improvement have we in the world experienced since cultural attitudes toward unmarried parents have softened?

  • dorian

    How irresponsible can our country become ?

    There have been several studies demonstrating the negative results of single parenthood.We have ghettos, prisons and welfare roles full of the product of random,casual and careless sex.

    These children are not born to mature,responsible Harvard educated mothers.Women like Anne Roiphe are endorsing poverty and difficult lives for young ladies to justify their acts.

    If you are so ignorant to ignore facts,so selfish you deny a child the intimate relationship with the father they need to develop and so self righteous you preach this as a positive lifestyle to other people, you are a selfish bastard.

    • http://www.facebook.com/michel.richy.7 Michel Richy

      Researchers have found that the mind can rearrange itself when encountered with new difficulties, even through maturity. Based on this research, Lumosity's workouts are designed to practice a range of intellectual features, from working memory to liquid intellect.

      fun for brain

  • Paul of Alexandria

    Referring to http://www.ruthinstitute.org/index.html and also to the excellent book on human societies "Man on Earth" by John Reader, marriage has always – since the beginning of human society – been defined as a contract between a man and a woman. Although there may be additional clauses, the fundamental basis is that she allows him sexual access and agrees to bear his children, he agrees to protect and provide for her and those children. The purpose of the marriage contract is to ensure that children (which after all are essential to the perpetuation of any society) are cared for and raised in a socially responsible manner conducive to an orderly society. ("Bastard" has always been in insult, since it implies that one grew up without the civilizing influence of a father).

    Because the marriage contract is a contract, it is the concern of and subject to governmental concern. It always has been, and this Progressive assertion that marriage is somehow a purely religious function is a load of horse-hocky. Now of course all religions bless marriages, and in many societies (but not all) religious officials are authorized by the state to conduct marriages; however, marriage is and always has been a civil function. When Jesus asserts that in heaven people will neither marry nor be given in marriage (Matthew 22:30, etc) it probably isn't because there are no longer men or women, or even sex (I'm guessing), but because there is no longer a state.

    It is important to note that this definition of marriage has held even in those societies that accept homosexuality (which, really, is most cultures outside of the Judeo-Christian heritage). The most notorious example of this is ancient Sparta, where homosexuality was ingrained in the culture to such an extent that wives literally had to pretend to be young boys in order to have sexual intercourse with their husbands. Nonetheless, the basic institution of marriage was still held sacred. Likewise, in first century Rome homosexuality was accepted, and – just to show that there is nothing new under the sun – there was even a push to legalize homosexual unions as marriages. It failed.

    • tagalog

      That's very interesting, what you claim about the marriage contract necessarily implying state interest in the regulation of the contract, and religious involvement being secondary. It's counter to my own gut feelings, but your argument is compelling. I need to re-think my ideas on state and church involvement in marriage. Thanks for a highly original line of thought and argument.

      • Paul of Alexandria

        Thank you. John Reader's book contains a great deal of information on a number of societies, across the world and throughout history. It's also interesting to look at historical practices in Europe, where literally the first thing done during a marriage ceremony was (and often is) to sign the marriage contract; then the priest would perform the ceremony. Even today, in many countries in Europe a couple must be first married at the government marriage office, then may go to the church. I don't know about Asia, but I do read that this is also the practice in Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Japan).

        This is not to downplay the importance of marriage in practically all religions, nor of the importance of faith to a marriage (speaking as a Christian, myself). I'm just speaking here of the importance in the secular world (Left-hand Kingdom, if you will) of marriage and that it is not merely a religious institution, as some would claim.

  • Paul of Alexandria

    (continued)
    You might notice that I have said nothing of love here. As was stated more or less explicitly in the marvelous play "Fiddler on the Roof," love proceeds from a marriage, as the spouses learn each other; 20 years or so after their arranged marriage, Tevya and Golda finally realize that they do, in fact, love each other quite deeply. It is desirable to have husband and wife love each other – realizing that what modern society defines as "true love" is really just infatuation – but it has never been part of the legal definition.

    Polygamy – whether polyandry or polygyny – is defined as multiple simultaneous marriages, not one marriage with multiple partners. After all, if a man with two wives divorces one, the divorce doesn't affect the legal status of the other wife. Nor, in any polygamous marriage, are the two wives (or two husbands) expected to have sexual relations with each other.

    • Chattybelle

      My Dad raised 3 teen girls but not quite like my mother would in so far as he was more naive to the wily ways of women. He very wisely chose the solo technique and did not get a replacement; probably on advice from his sisters. He did not sacrifice us to his pleasures and ceded our domain to us 3 girls to manage. When he did remarry, we had all left home. He remains married, to someone I admit, is a better catch than my mother (she had some issues with alcohol abuse). Nature will not allow me to contemplate life without a Father. Do you ever wonder how secure a small child feels with only a Mother, who willingly (stupidly) chose half for them, when she could have chosen all. I would be scared.

      • JoJoJams

        Chattybelle, this reminded me of a lady-friend I have. She has two boys, 5 and and 1 1/2. She left her husband (who himself was immature) for a younger man. And she completely dotes on the infant, while talking negatively about the 5 year old. And then she wonders aloud why the 5 year old is seriously acting up in school, and is agressive and throws tantrumns. Quite simply HE's AFRAID!!! She left the father for a younger man (who, by the way, left her after a year of having his fun), and obviously loves the infant much more – the poor little boy certainly thinks "he's next" to be given the boot! She had gotten herself fired from her job, and I was over there bringing some food for them. The boy and I had some fun playing some board games (and I'd had to admonish him a few times to control his behavior), and then we all sat on the couch to watch a show.

        • JoJoJams

          He was next to me and blurted out, "I feel like we're a family! ~ You're the daddy, and I'm the kid, and mom's the mom!". I just smiled – for me, that was a treasure – as I've always wanted children….but life took me down a different path. I will take that moment to the grave with me….. But guess what?? She refuses to see me now….. What is it with some women who can't see LIFE in front of their very eyes!! I sooo feel sorry for that scared little boy, who only wants a father to love him. Sorry for going off topic – but your post just brought all that home to me again.

  • ClearView

    Charles Murray's new book, Coming Apart, well worth a read for insight beyond the current topic, provides insight in to the decline toward bastard births. Well worth a read. If the underlying conditions continue, extrapolated forward the picture isn't going to improve any time soon.

  • clarespark

    I would add to the list of horribles, the presence of a weak father, which may be worse than no father at all. For instance, where was Whitney Houston's father in the deluge of tributes following her death? I wrote about that here: http://clarespark.com/2012/02/13/whitneys-spectac…. We watch these train wriecks without drawing the necessary lesson. So far curiosity among bloggers has focused on whether John Russell Houston, Jr. was white or had white blood. I believe that the media coverage of Whitney's demise (conspicuosly lacking mention of her father) is propping up the myth that American blacks don't need a daddy who is strong, loving, and protective.

    • Stephen_Brady

      "God give us men. The time demands
      Strong minds, great hearts, true faith, and willing hands;
      Men whom the lust of office does not kill;
      Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy;
      Men who possess opinions and a will;
      Men who have honor; men who will not lie;
      Men who can stand before a demagogue
      And dam his treacherous flatteries without winking;
      Tall men, sun-crowned, who live above the fog
      In public duty and in private thinking."
      -Josiah Gilbert Holland

  • Paul of Alexandria

    If you look carefully, this is a result of the feminist insistence that there is no fundamental difference between men and women – despite all evidence to the contrary. If there is no effective difference between the two, than a woman can hold any job (e.g. firefighter, soldier) just as well as a man (regardless of the genetics involved); two men or woman can be married just as well as a heterosexual couple; one woman/two women/two men can work and raise a child just as well as a man and a woman. They wish the world to operate this way, therefore they think that it does operate that way.

  • Chattybelle

    When my Mother died, my Father became my only parent. I was raised by him and will look any single mother in the eye and ask what reason she has for denying her child a Father? I get the blank stare when I ask them who will raise their child if they die. Most of them already hate their own mothers, for denying them a Daddy. Dad, I love you,

    • Paul of Alexandria

      On behalf of fathers, thank you. I am not, of course, saying that a mother or father who's spouse has died cannot raise a child solo if they have to. I would ask, just from curiosity: 1) to what extent did your father refer to your mother, perhaps as an example, while raising you? Even a dead parent can be used as an example. And to what extent did the extended family (aunts, sisters, etc) help?

      • Chattybelle

        I forgot tho, I notice the Moms tend to coddle or soothe. I miss that, as Dads tend to critique problems, not commiserate. I could write a book on how being a 21st Century woman raised by a Dad qualifies me for a job in a freak show.

        • Paul of Alexandria

          Yeah, that's part of the genetics. It's a hard thing to break, as my daughters can tell you. What drives me up the wall, as a father, is that my daughters want to complain to me about their day – and expect me to sit there and commiserate, like my wife does. My natural urge is to FIX THE PROBLEM! We drive each other nuts.

          • Chattybelle

            Hey now, real men need a fully equipped tool bench, not a shelf full of self help books. Just by fixing our car, the hot water heater and the vacuum you can own us. Always take your girls to the hardware store; it is a powerful place to bond with a daughter as a father. I loved those excursions with my Dad because it is where a proud Dad displays his best work, to his peers. Very good for our ego, if given enough prep time.

  • mrbean

    There are women who have popped out 5 bastard kids from 5 absentee fathers and they are on welfare, and they get cash as a debit card, food stamps, rent subsidies, free medical as medicaid, free perscription drugs, and in soem cities mass transit vouchers, which amounts to a benefit of between $2,500 to $3,500 a month, so where is the incentive to get off welfare.

  • mrbean

    From the FBI: 63 percent of all suicides are individuals from single-parent households. From the Centers for Disease Control: 75 percent of adolescents in chemical-dependency hospitals come from single-parent households. From the Children’s Defense Fund: more than half of all youths incarcerated for criminal acts come from single-parent households. Most single parent households with these problems have absentee fathers who do not support their children at all. And 70% of all teen pregnancies are by teen children with a single parent and the vicious cycle continues.

    • Chattybelle

      Hey. No talking about social issues! Did you not get the memo? I kid ya.

    • Questions

      THis is much more a black than a non-black thing.

      • Larry

        If you normalize for single motherhood amongst the prison population you come up with a black crime rate the same as a white crime rate.

        • mrbean

          Do you always make up things to make yourself feel good?

  • Flowerknife_us

    Single parenthood and growth in Government dependance go hand in hand.

    With so much "birth controll. sex education, abortion, free condoms" were told so often we as a society cannot live without if were going to deal with these issues. Why then has the problem only become worse?

    Without a "Father" in the true sense of the word involved, There is no one to tell a young man to keep something in their pants and their Daughters not to be a Whore. That may be a tad old fashoned.

    A new fangled way may be to tell the children they need an aids test befor becomming so intimate. Sex is a really wonderfull thing between consenting ADULTS but it sure isn'i worth dieing over.

  • Suzanne

    About 20 years ago, the whole "Murphy Brown" senario unfolded. A TV show staring Candice Bergen, it was about an accomplished, wealthy white women who choses to give birth while remaining single. The idea was that she didn't need a husband because she, being a "strong woman" could do it all. Dan Quayle critized the show at the time and got a lot of flack for it. This is just an updated version of the same thing even though alot of statistics have come out showing how rough it is for most people from single households.

    • Questions

      I doubt out-of-wedlock children of accomplished white women are at risk even remotely in ways that children of black crack 'hos are.

  • Amused

    Chattybelle , I think you need profressional counseling . bastard children have been around since this country was founded . Children are orphaned for any number of reasons . So the author concludes we are " a bastard nation ". Maybe Flynn should speak for himself rather than engage in an insulting broadbrushing of the US for the sake of a partisan meme .

    • Paul of Alexandria

      I think that you miss the point. Chattybelle never said that she was illegitimate, just that she was raised by a single parent.

      Obviously illegitimate children have always been around, and every society has found a way to deal with them. However our society is at the point where illegitimacy is accepted as normal and even desirable. Given the extent to which practically every other society on Earth in the past has gone to to avoid this situation perhaps we should rethink things a bit. Our ancestors were not stupid, and I rather think that societies traditionally encouraged and enforced marriage because they found that the alternative was unacceptable in the long run.

      • intrcptr2

        Amused always misses the point, on purpose.

        And to nitpick, her dad was a widower.

        • Amused

          oh yea , our ancestors sold ,rented or killed them . Single parenthood is here to stay for a number of reasons , divorce being one of them . BTW , the reason I referred Chatybelle to professional counseling , had nothing to do with whether she was orpahned , abandoned by a parent or whatever , the reason was how she refferred to her Mother ,as a bad pick , as her stepmom ,as a better pick , and fealing like a freak by being broughtup by a single Dad . Chattybelles got deepseated psycological problems , if she is sincere in her post . But then again sentiments such as hers should be no surprise realizing the audience that the author of this pointless article is appealing to . Oh …I'm sorry , did I say pointless ? LOL….not not by a stretch , this article does indeed have a point , maybe some of you geniuses can figure out what it is .

          • Paul of Alexandria

            Huh? sold, rented, kill whom? What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

  • Michael

    I am a 30yr. old single father of 5 month old son. As much as I miss my wife "I'm a widower" I am sure I will remarry in the near future. I can't imagine raising my son without a mother. Children need both parents because a mother and father provide different perspectives on life. Yes I can teach my son how to be a man by myself, I can teach him about honesty, integrity and hard work. But he needs more than that. Mothers provide lessons on compassion and understanding which in all honesty aren't typically the easiest thing for a man to teach.

    • Paul of Alexandria

      My prayers are for you.

      • Amused

        So , what will you do Michael ? You are not the first nor will you be the last single Dad to bring up sons or daughters . Yes it's best to have children grow up with both parents , but there have been several millions of single parents both Mom and Dads who have successfully nurtured their children into responsible and caring adults . To lose a Mom or dad is part of life , and although sad , it is one of lifes most powerfull lessons , not one which we seek but one that is foisted by upon us by fate .
        You would not run out and "find ' a suitable woman to serve as "mother " simply for the sake of providing your children with one , would you ? Remember , time is NOT on your side as your children continue to grow up since the time of your loss . Nor does it diminish the development of a child who has the misfortune of losing one or both of his parents ,for there are certainly literal millions of successfull adults , even famous adults who have such life experiences ..

        • Amused

          And might I add , there are some of the more destructive examples of child development , where indeed it would have been better had not one or both of the parents been absent and the duty of raising the child given to more sane or loving people . And there is certainly a mountain of proof for that . That is why this article is nothing more than an exercise in TOTAL BULLSHEEET , and it's title [ Bastard Nation ] an affront and ignorant smack in the face to all American parents .

          • Paul of Alexandria

            You're full of it. Sure, there are bad parents and good parents, and yes there are certainly those instances where certain parents did a bad job. But you cannot condemn the entire institution on the basis of those few exceptions. On the whole it is far better to have two good parents than only one, especially if the one is that way intentionally.

            One might ask what your issues are regarding your parents? You obviously have some problems.

          • Amused

            I have noI still appreciate tyheir sacrifice and miss them both , as they have been gone for 20 years . I have no issues with my parents , they gave me life , they sacrificed for me , I miss them both -where did you "read " that into my staement ? Nor have I condemned any institution [please sharpen your reading comprehension skills if any ]
            What I take exception to is raising an issue like this , which is basically pointless for the sake of poltical agaenda .I've worked with kids in Scouts , baseball , and church .With some kids I could tell you which had single parent upbringing , which were abused , and I saw kids with perfectly good parents go terribly wrong , and kid with nightmare parentsd rise above it and brecome magnificent young men or women . I simply do not diminish in any way single parents or their children .What I condemn is a dumb-asss article like this one with an even more dumb-asss title . And of course several comments that are borne out of pure malice , ignorance and stupidity . If you can't recognize this , well then that's on you ,aint it ?

          • Paul of Alexandria

            Read my post carefully. What ethnic group do you belong to? Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you are Swiss. According to your own logic, by reading your posts I may assume that all Swiss are snarky SOB's. You can no more attack marriage and the importance of two-(different-sex)-parent families by showing problems with a few two-parent families and the success of a few single-parent families than I can attack all Swiss by using you as an example.

            Again: the instances that you cite are in spite of the importance of two-parent families. You cannot use them to attack the institution as a whole. Human nature being what it is, there will always be a few outliers that don't follow expectation. The exception that proves the rule, if you will. That doesn't mean that you base law and custom on those exceptions!

  • royal humanist

    300,000 babies stolen/exchanged from parents & sold for adoption by Catholic Church in Spain, (very likely, the similar numbers in each and every country, done through house midwives-daaees, nurses and hospital staff): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049647/B
    Read : » Children of the Empire » by Gillian wagner about the trafficking in British Children, by the Christian Churches, to Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA and other colonies …

  • Penny

    It is funny that conservatives, who are constantly (and often correctly) lecturing on how there is a “human nature” that social-engineering will not change, forget this when the subject of child-production comes up.

    Most women are biologically programmed to want children. Feminists may deny this. Individual women may resist this. But the need (for most, not all) is nearly overpowering. For some it is the #1 drive, the most important thing in their lives.

    When a society contains so few suitable male partners, the choice comes down to
    (1)marry an unemployed/underemployed, video-game-playing, beer-swilling, beavis-n-butthead snickering male who will be a lousy husband, an irresponsible father, a financial drain on the family and have children with him, or
    (2)bypass the available waste-of-a-life males and have a child without the drawback of a marriage to what amounts to a man-child, or
    (3)deny a deep-seated need and forego having children.

    You seem happy if a woman makes choices 1 or 3. But many women are opting for choice #2.

    • SteveMR

      "Opting" for an utterly selfish choice. To conceive a child knowing from the outset that you will deliberately deprive him or her of his/her father. How about choice (4) – giving some comfort to a child in desperate need for love who is already alive? Raising a foster child, adopting, being a "big sister"? No, gotta have "your own" kid. The irony is that by doing so, you are condemning your daughters to the same choices you list above. You think that the odds are significantly better/worse you will raise a suitable male partner as a single parent? Keep dreaming. By the way, though there are certainly a lot of lazy, good-for-nothing-men, there are an equal amount of unsuitable women – selfish, high-maintenance, and ultimately man-hating.

  • penny

    continued…

    If you really care about children being raised without fathers, address the social & economic issues that have produced a generation of immature, minimally-educated, unemployable, commitment-phobic males. Because most women will not deny themselves the most fundamental biological and psychological need – to have children. And in the absence of cognitively-intact, productive males, these women will have them as single mothers.

    • Ageofreason

      Yes. What has happened to the men? Progressivism, political correctness, feminism, welfare, big government, medicare, food stamps, social workers, and a sense of entitlement have all displaced what makes men men: work, personal responsibility for themselves and their families, integrity, and the need, the desperate need to be needed. The state and the philosphy which created big daddy government has gutted men of usefulness. The snobbery of the "intellectual" class has assaulted the honor in productive work that is not of the requisite status. May all of the "progressives" of whatever stripe…socialist, Marxist, fascist, feminist, environmentalist, leftist who all pursue power for power's sake in the guise of "the common good"… rot in everlasting hell.

      • Paul of Alexandria

        I've read numerous places how black families were actually doing quite well, up until the institution of the modern welfare system in the '50's and 60's. The support for single mothers, and the actual disincentives for fathers to be in the house, managed to damage things rather effectively.

    • Paul of Alexandria

      A well-ordered society requires balancing the needs and wants of the individual against the needs and wants of the group. Yes, those women want children – but in the best interests of the children, single parenthood is not advisable and in fact should be discouraged. A child is not a thing or a toy, it is a person who needs to grow up well balanced and a responsible, civilized member of society.

      As for the availability of suitable men: 1) that has always been a problem, as long as humankind has existed; people cope. 2) If you look carefully at modern society, a great deal of the blame for the behavior of men can be laid at the feet of the women, who – in the name of "equality" – have denigrated manly and chivalrous behavior in favor of feminized, non-threatening eunuchs. You reap what you sow.

    • Kepha

      Easy way to address the problem you raised:

      ROund up every man-hating feminist and sexual revolutionary in America, subject them to a public, Maoist "people's court" trial on the steps of the Capitol, and shoot them publicly on the mall. Then, we'll have a grand public book-burning of most "cultural monuments" written during the late 19th and 20th centuries–including Roiphe's drivel.

      sarcasm off.

  • Amused

    Looks like Penny has tapped the Conservatie mindset . I knew this whole blog couldn't be all stupid . You can call it whatever you wish [misnomer ] Ageofreason , it's just anothe croc of Conservative Bullsheeet " putting women in their place " . The amusing part of it all is that people like you [and the author of this trash article ] think you're fooling anyone . I would seriously reconsider , if I were you Ageofreason, WHO might actually at the end of the day , be rotting in hell .

    • Keith Greenlee

      You"re a fool.

      • Amused

        and you're an assssshole .

        • Western Canadian

          Now and then, you get things right. This is not one of those times.

    • Paul of Alexandria

      The problem is that you have no clue as to what the "conservative mindset" actually is.
      Instead of snarky comments, how about posting what you see the solution really is, and then we can comment on it. So far, you have only attacked-by-emotion, with no substance whatsoever.

  • Goodguy

    What Penny doesn't understand is that it's the very Feminism that made her and her female sisters what they are today that has kicked men to curb. Feminism's success is predicated on dominating men. Now that they dominate so many of their male counterparts, all they can do is complain about all those worthless men (she put it much better in her rant). Looks like what the feminists wrote and taught in their books all these decades just didn't turn out to be true.

  • candy lincoln

    I agree with all of you. There is something you all should know. There were thousands of children born through c-section, and if you were. Your parents may not even know you exist. doctors have been stealing babys from the mothers sence the 1960s. I know my mom and dad were both victoms. If you have had a c-section it would be wise to check your records. this is one of the main reasons adoptees are kept from seeing there records.