>Johannes, the problem with Quayle making an issue out of this Murphy Brown character is that he himself represents a less than ideal leader to so many people.... it would be a huge farce if he wasnt serious.<
I see. Admittedly I do not know Quayle well. Surely I know of some of his public speaking fumbles, but I hardly think it reasonable to judge the man on this basis. He is perhaps a very smart man, a very loyal, caring husband and father who simply is not very good before cameras. In any event, it seems reasonable to me to analyze the essentials of Quayle's message apart from his person.
>For example, lets say hypothetically I am a single parent, which is not completely ideal. What do I have over Quayle? Well, for one thing, Im a lot smarter than he is. Sure, his kids were raised in a 2 parent household, but it was a dumb household, and who knows what kind of torture his kids had to endure being the sons of Mr. Potatoe-head. So hes not ideal either. Who is a better parent between the two of us?<
Firstly, we know as fact none of the things you have said above. Secondly, this is not the issue. The issue concerns Quayle's essential contention that single parenthood should not be held forward as a laudable institution, a general preference over dual parenthood. In MB's circumstance, there ostensibly were no comparisons between her abilities to raise a child verses some specific persons. The show apparently lauded single parenthood philosophically -- as a laudable national institution.
>This Murphy Brown situation is particularly annoying because that show was designed after a real person (Linda Ellerbee) who in my mind is a monument to society compared to Quayle. Of course Quayle was in the National Guard.... so that counts for something.... nah, Ellerbee is still better.<
Perhaps, but again, in MB's circumstance, there ostensibly were no comparisons between her abilities to raise a child verses some specific persons. In other words, we were not forced to choose the better of two undesirables. The show apparently lauded single parenthood philosophically -- as a laudable national institution in and of itself. This is what Quayle lobbied against, and I think he is right.
>I think the best thing is just not to embrace this moral policing.<
Well now I do not think it a matter of moral policing. Firstly, Quayle simply placed his opinion in the marketplace of ideas. We are free to accept or reject them. I think they merit my attention, you apparently do not think they merit yours. This is fine. No moral policing here at all. Secondly, the matter becomes very important when we consider the larger effects of single parenthood on society. It seems reasonable to me that a female who has always known the love of a father, a real dad who always has been available to her, is preferable as a wife over one who has never really known such love. Perhaps such a thing matters not at all to some people, but it does matter to others. Those for whom it matters should have a say on this issue, as well as anyone else. In any event, their speaking publicly about it amounts to not a shred of moral policing. |
