SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
From: Brumar8911/13/2012 8:31:23 AM
2 Recommendations  Read Replies (3) of 85487
 
When Marxists Make the Anti-Family Argument Honestly

"There is no reason that a teen should not be financially and emotionally assisted for her choice to have a family." -- Madeleine Schwartz

Isn’t it great when Marxists eschew the Saul Alinsky strategy of obscuring their unpopular objectives and instead return to the New Left tradition of openly stating their destructive goals?

Please, by all means, start telling us all about how you want to destroy each institution that sustains Western Civilization.

Check out this fantastic piece at The New Inquiry by Madeleine Schwartz, “The Anti-Family”, lamenting that MTV’s “Teen Mom” show, “does not attempt radical advocacy”:

In presenting these relationships in with dignity, Teen Mom acknowledges what it viewers may not wish to know: this is the shape of the family in America today. The show does not attempt radical advocacy, but it does understand that the most fundamental patterns in American life can’t be covered up. Teen motherhood, single motherhood, unmarried cohabitation—these are not plagues or social ills that pose a threat to the otherwise normal structures of everyday life. They are our new social reality.

What the show doesn’t get to is that this is a good thing.

There is nothing wrong with teenage or single motherhood. The things children need: economic livelihood, emotional support and an education, are not dependent on a nuclear family structure. Poverty is poverty whether it’s endured by two people or four. A couple cannot raise a child better than one can. Once we get rid of the idea that marriage is the privileged form of cohabitation and that women cannot raise children without the help of a man—ideas that the Left has been working to eradicate for decades—there is no reason that a teen should not be financially and emotionally assisted for her choice to have a family. The potential diffusion of the family (as the New York Times recently reported, it doesn’t look like the trends will stop anytime soon) is one of the most exciting things to happen to the American social pattern since sexual liberation. It means the end of what were just decades ago universal truths: every household must be headed by a breadwinning man; only when married will a woman have social value.

The problem is not teen motherhood. The problem is the legal system that makes the lives of teenage and single parents impossible. The shaming and belittling of teenage mothers is not just rhetoric: Teenage parents are actively discriminated against. Teen parents cannot receive financial assistance unless they live with their parents or marry. They cannot get welfare if they are not enrolled in an educational program.. In some cases, the state can deny all benefits to babies born to unmarried teenage parents. Welfare reform has taken money earmarked for families in need and diverted it toward programs aimed at promoting marriage and abstinence (For example: “Laugh Your Way to a Better Marriage”). All of this comes on top of the routine discriminations against single parents—higher insurance and tax rates, difficulties in obtaining housing and jobs—and those against the poor, who with the Hyde Amendment may not even have been able to abort if they had wanted. These policies were created with the explicit goal encouraging a two-parent model. They make any other option out of the question.

Really make a point to enter the parallel dimension and read the whole thing. One almost reads stuff like this and wonders if it’s some Onion-style parody of Marxism. “The problem is the legal system that makes the lives of teenage and single parents impossible.” Translation: the real problem is that the United States has not fully implemented a wealth redistribution apparatus to subsidize teenage moms who “choose” to become single parents. Hmm… How might anyone manage that in the next four years?

http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/11/12/when-marxists-make-the-anti-family-argument-honestly/

........
James K

Pretty standard leftist rhetoric. “Society is incredibly racist, sexist, bigoted because we refuse to implement giant bureaucracies that enable everybody’s poor choices.”

Same reason why being anti-welfare is considered racist, even though most people against welfare want to uplift the black, urban communities (and white, rural ones) that have been devastated by the effects of welfare.

Only a person in a privileged bubble could seriously put forth such an argument. Can a single mother with a masters/Ph.D. raise children “by herself.” Yes, with some help from daycare and maybe a nanny. Can a young woman with maybe a high school diploma have a great chance of raising kids? Some can sacrifice mightily and accomplish this, but most don’t.
..........

The Anti-Family

By Madeleine Schwartz
....

http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/the-anti-family/
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext