Posted on 02/04/2009 2:26:31 PM PST by pissant
It's been weeks since the last one, so on Sunday, The New York Times Magazine featured yet another cheery, upbeat article on single mothers. As with all its other promotional pieces on single motherhood over the years, the Times followed a specific formula to make this social disaster sound normal, blameless and harmless -- even brave.
These single motherhood advertisements include lots of conclusory statements to the effect that this is simply the way things are -- so get used to it, bourgeois America! "(A)n increasing number of unmarried mothers," the article explained, "look a lot more like Fran McElhill and Nancy Clark -- they are college-educated, and they are in their 30s, 40s and 50s."
Why isn't the number of smokers treated as a fait accompli that the rest of us just have to accept? Smoking causes a lot less damage and the harm befalls the person who chooses to smoke, not innocent children.
The Times' single motherhood endorsements always describe single mothers as the very picture of middle-class normality: "She grew up in blue-collar Chester County, Pa., outside Philadelphia, and talks like a local girl (long O's). Her father was a World War II vet who worked for a union and took his kids to Mass most Sundays." Even as a girl she dreamed of raising a baby with a 50 percent greater chance of growing up in poverty.
(Excerpt) Read more at anncoulter.com ...
Haven’t got time to Google it up. I’m sure you can dig it up if you’re interested. But just think about it. Do you really expect the now infant children of young widows whose husbands got killed in Iraq, will grow up to have outcomes comparable to those of the average single mother, who is a ghetto-dwelling, high school dropout, 2nd/3rd/4th generation welfare addict with substance abuse problems and a string of long rap-sheeted live-in boyfriends leaving her with a string of babies? Though I know the studies have been done, I don’t really need to see them to know that these two groups of children won’t have remotely comparable outcomes.
If Ann got pregnant by accident...... Wait!! Stop right there!
You’re obviously a Democrat. In this life, there is a lot that can happen by accident. However, a woman can’t accidentally get pregnant anymore than a man can accidentally have sex. It takes desire, focus, and effort to get pregnant (and to have sex)!!!
In your words, you give away your belief that getting pregnant is somehow beyond the control of the the ‘victim-mother.’ And, this is exactly the problem that Ann is fighting in her book....Victim mentality!!!
Late?
I beat you by 2 minutes and 13 seconds!
That will teach you to read the article first :)
Cheers,
knewshound
LOL - sshush, you are not supposed to wake up the proletariat.
Do you really expect the now infant children of young widows whose husbands got killed in Iraq, will grow up to have outcomes comparable to those of the average single mother, who is a ghetto-dwelling, high school dropout, 2nd/3rd/4th generation welfare addict with substance abuse problems and a string of long rap-sheeted live-in boyfriends leaving her with a string of babies?Read the book. Chapter two.
Ann specifically separates "single mothers" from "widows" and "divorced mothers."
If Ann got pregnant by accident......Here is a quote from Ann's book, as posted on www.randomhouse.com:
Single mothers: Getting pregnant isnt like catching the flu.
There are volitional acts involvedsomeone else explain it to Dennis Kucinich.By this purposeful act, single mothers cause irreparable harm to other human beingstheir own childrenas countless studies on the subject make clear.
Well, maybe in a Kennedy Klan type of way after the tobacco stimulus tax kicks in under the Democrats. Drug dealers switching to black market sales of tobacco- safer, less jail time (SO FAR).
The Single Mommy of the Year Award gpoes to the female who had the 8 babies plus 6...
Which just proves that it’s not the lack of a father that produces the lousy outcomes. A minority of single-mothers-by-choice have comparable educations and financial resources and general competence to the average widow with young children. Common sense tells us that these two groups of children will have similar outcomes. Let’s see Ann cite a study of college graduate single-mothers-by-choice, that compares their children’s outcomes to the those of the general pool of single mothers. Without that, there’s simply no evidence that single motherhood is a causative factor in lousy outcomes for children.
I guess you got my point then.
Ann Coulter is plenty healthy, and a casual observer deciding that she is unhealthy is well...kinda uncalled for.
Perhaps she is glad she is not considered mega hot to those that perceive her to be something she is not.
: > )
Good column, huh?
“Without that, theres simply no evidence that single motherhood is a causative factor in lousy outcomes for children.”
______________
I guess I owe Murphy Brown an apoloy.
The yuppie c-nts who couldn't attract a man to knock them up the old fashioned way yet still do IV or get a "favor from a friend" are merely pathetic, not leeches on society.
A widow is not a “single mother”. Those definitions were purposely blurred by the Left to provide cover for irresponsible women.
The psychological difference between being a child whose father died, and a child who never had a father, or one who didn’t care, is a mile wide. It’s the difference between losing a loved one and being abandoned. It’s so obvious it’s a shame it needs to be pointed out.
By the way, you might want to pause and consider before contradicting Ann Coulter when it comes to facts, studies, and statistics. Pick up one of her books and you will find her positions to be very well documented.
College educated single mothers are STILL very likely to be living in poverty.
Which goes to my thesis - poverty, like wealth, is very much a personal choice. A person ends up about as well off in life, as he (or she) thinks he (or she) ought to be.
Poverty is an excellent way to play the “victim” card, and it calls in all the blame that can be thrown around, while the “victim” may softly weep at the harsh vicissitudes forced upon her by an unforgiving and stern code of conduct. But she has been in the forefront of combatting these stereotypes, and for that, she is “brave”.
Hey, this woman may be slim but she has a he** of a rack and she is not undernourished. She can climb into my bed anytime she wants! Not that she would want to, mind you, but she would be welcome.
If you read the book, Ann makes that exact point. Widows as a group don't make bad decisions. Single mothers as a group are self-destructive idiots who take their children down with them.
If Ann got pregnant by accident ...
The exception that proves the rule. Ann is not likely to "accidentally" (or not) get pregnant. Therefore, because she understands 1)what causes pregnancy 2)how much trouble raising children on your own (or not) is, she will do a much better job of it than your average welfare cow who doesn't.
Absolutely right, Guilty would be an excellent example and has all the statistics to back up the claims being made in this article.
Do you know why that is? Because Ann would never get pregnant "accidentally". She is talking about women who choose to be single mothers for the most part. Read her book, Guilty, and then make you idiotic assertion.
“Hey, this woman may be slim but she has a he** of a rack and she is not undernourished. She can climb into my bed anytime she wants! Not that she would want to, mind you, but she would be welcome.”
She’s single. It could happen :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.