Let us turn back the hands of time today and look at America, and society for that matter, some 150 years ago. I know you may be wondering why I would want to do such a thing, but then again why do I do most of the things that I do. (Man that was a lot of ‘do’ in that sentence, hopefully the whole post isn't full of do.)
In the days of our great-great grandparents, or not so great in some cases, there was a certain aspect of life that was just simpler. Do you ever recall hearing of them having to deal with many of the same issues that we have today. Sure there was unemployment and the housing of a family could become a stressor, but today’s society seems to moan much louder.
In the days gone by a man used to take the care of his family into his own hands, not cry to his city officials about his short falls. The family would move to find work, or the family would work the land (if they had any), but seldom did they expect a social agency to care for their needs. In those days people flocked to our great nation for the opportunity to work and be their own person. Currently, to our great misfortune, our nation does not breed that same fervor and the flock comes for a different reason.
The answer as to why this occured is lengthier than what I can provide today, however, I contend that one key reason is the absent father/husband. When one takes a casual glance in today’s society you are more likely to find a single mother struggling to survive than you are to find a responsibly, married, man that is breaking his back for his family. Now, I understand that there were many injustices committed in yesteryear and our current system alleviates much of them, but which injustice is bigger: today’s absent father or yesterday’s overworked man?
Simply put: I am asking that America stop looking for the assistance of government agencies and to begin standing on their own two feet. America was great in the days that men took care of their family and women (hopefully I am not castrated for this) took care of their men. Unfortunately the moral standard for society has become so liberal that the hope for a return to what was once great can only be concluded as being lost.
Women, your cowboy is never coming home; not because all men are bad, but because there is no home being made. Men, your lady is not yours any longer; not because women have begun to wear pants, but because we have forgotten how to love them. America, our greatness may never return; not because America is not great, but because America has forgotten what it stands for.
Ok...I do get it...I do. And for the most part I agree. I think much of the work ethic and drive for making our own way has disappeared. I don't know where or when this happened and I still see it in some areas of society. But I feel that you do see more people relying on the government rather than themselves for assistance. I also feel that it takes away from the family dynamic because we are breading those who will only know how to work the system; they will go to any means necessary to make excuses or deals with strangers to get the assistance they need. I feel that in "yesteryear" (as you so call it) the main focus was on the family. This type of mindset, I feel, encouraged the family to work together to survive and it did seem to work well for the most part. It gave people pride in their work and what they owned because it all came from the family unit and their inter-workings. Coming from the family I did, I see how when each member builds upon the other and supports the promotion of love and the work ethic, it leads to personal independence.
ReplyDeleteThe part I am going to comment on with a "really Ed...really" is (as you already know) the part about women taking care of their men. It's not that there is anything wrong with this and I'm not knocking that lifestyle...but still. It is the fact that this ideal comes out in almost everything that you speak or write about. It's good that you want to be the "man" and support your family but I think it is more important for the family to interact on similar levels. There should be no designated roles in the family...it should just be what works for the individuals. It's great if that's how your family is set up...but it shouldn't be the only successful way to commune as a family.
And did you really refer to men as "cowboys"?
Disclaimer: I want to make it very clear that my views on the family are very traditional, and yes they do work for my family. In no way am I trying to put women back into the dark ages. I believe that the contributions that women have made to society are wonderful and in many cases the reason we have become a great society.
ReplyDeleteWhat I really wanted to do here was to call on all men to pony up (might as well stay with the whole cowboy theme). If women can lead the family that is great, but that should be a woman's choice not an obligation because the man is to lazy.
History is reconstructed from the position of the present. To (re)construct a history in which men have traditionally been good fathers to all their children is first of all to weave a fiction. And secondly it reproduces this fiction as if it were truth.
ReplyDeleteOn the first point, there is no evidence that single mothers are a phenomenon specific to the modern age. If the assumption is ceding of responsibility to an institution one should be fully aware that the early church created the first welfare institutions (charity), not the state. So the historical analysis and the assumption behind the conclusion drawn from said historical analysis is incorrect.
On the second point, to (re)produce the narrative of a romanticized past, is to ask for that romanticized past to not only be created again, but to exist immutably. No institution or ideal or meaning of a word is immutable, everything is subject to change. To appeal to a position as immutable, especially a romanticized past is to ask for the violence of cultural conservatism (a constant repetition or performance of the romanticized roles), concealed behind the guise of normalcy or sameness. Efforts to escape these roles are met with police action of the physical and intellectual nature.
Instead one should ask oneself, why is it considered normal or common sense or practical that the "single mother" is a phenomenon specific only to the modern age?
ty 4 the read.
-$h1th3@d
Well met Mr. Jones (and yes I do know who you really are my fellow DUck). To all of your points I do not object, however, the conclusion of my argument is still valid.
ReplyDeleteWhile single mothers and lousy fathers are nothing new (instead we may find that they are simply more accepted and therefore afforded more mobile freedom)the issue of having a strong family 'institution' is still essential. It may be possible that due to our coming of age we are more aware of these social issues, but one does have to admit that the acceptance of absent fathers in our society is destructive. It is time that we hold our fellow men accountable for their reproductive actions.
Lastly, what the heck man. I have not heard from you for years and this is how you say hello. lol.
Ed, there have always been irresponsible fathers and single mothers but I agree that these situations are more acceptable to society today. There also has been welfare and government assistance in the past but the people were not as willing to accept these services because they felt the responsibility of taking care of themselves and their families on their own. Today, there is a generation of entitlement. There is no shame in accepting food stamps, welfare, etc. True, there are some cases where these services are truly needed, but I feel these are in the minority. I believe the foundation of a good family with two parents is role specific. That does not mean that the husband is above the woman. That simply means that the husband and wife share equal roles doing what best fits the family. Children have to learn to respect their parents and the authority of their parents.
ReplyDeletelol, I can't resist a good blog.
ReplyDeleteAcceptance is necessary. The only other option is coercion in the area of reproduction. This would mean licenses and government intervention in conception. This would also mean punishment for those who did not obey, unless obedience was deemed so necessary something like forced sterilization would take place.
The only options besides "acceptance" are these draconian police measures.
It should be understood as a constant, there will always be deadbeats (of both sexes) who abandon their children. Thats how it is. The importance comes in addressing these social harms. Ensuring that these children do not suffer for the rest of their lives as a result of negligent parents. This often must take the form of taxpayer money subsidizing them in what is derogatorily referred to as "welfare". If we understand that injustice is inevitable (if it weren't how would justice even become possible?) then what is important is creating a social safety net for those innocents who suffer from the injustice. I have no problem with my taxes going to pay the rent, books, clothes, and food of children who could not afford it without. I especially PREFER this route for my taxes rather than: paying interest on the debt, corporate welfare to banks, military spending, etc.
Improvement lies in community organization rather than heavy handed welfare, but we cannot just take away the social safety net and see if society floats. We must work at it without taking away the supports first.
Well stated. I do wish there was a way to ensure proper use of these funds. I will never complain of the use of funds to support our children, however, we do see many cases of abuse where children can become near to that of an income source. But as you stated what is there to do,limit the amount of children a person could have? I think not. That would rob citizens of liberty instead of protecting.
ReplyDeleteYou stated it well when you said "Improvement lies in community organization rather than heavy handed welfare." Unfortunately, a majority of our communities only look at the abuse by the adults and not the disruption and destruction of young innocent life.
Thank you for the comments and support.