Sunday, 19 August 2012

P.H.D Bitch


Spin hamster, spin! Katie Roiphe lecturer in journalism in NYC University (lol) and with a PHD in fucking Literature (she's the kind of person who has a metaphorical hardon for the pointlessly obfuscating Judith Butlers of this world), has written a piece in the New York Times on single motherhood. The piece is titled "In Defense of Single Motherhood". In reality, it should be titled, "Why I'm allowed fuck up my own children." The hamster is strong in this one. The piece? Well, it is the New York Beta Times we're dealing with here! This really is one of these articles where you leave your brain at the door.

To start:
IN a season of ardent partisan clashing, Americans seem united in at least one shared idea: Single mothers are bad. A Pew Research Center poll on family structures reports that nearly 7 in 10 Americans think single mothers are a “bad thing for society.
 Stupid Americans with their philistine beliefs!
 Conservatives obsess over moral decline, and liberals worry extravagantly — and one could argue condescendingly — about children, but all exhibit a fundamental lack of imagination about what family can be — and perhaps more pressingly — what family is: we now live in a country in which 53 percent of the babies born to women under 30 are born to unmarried mothers. 
Shit, I didn't know it was this high. I like the way she says "about children" and then moves onto what family "can be". This is dialectical materialism at its finest. It is no longer about children. It is whatever you want it to be.
I happen to have two children with two different fathers, neither of whom I live with, and both of whom we are close to. I am lucky enough to be living in financially stable, relatively privileged circumstances, and to have had the education that allows me to do so. I am not the “typical” single mother, but then there is no typical single mother any more than there is a typical mother. It is, in fact, our fantasies and crude stereotypes of this “typical single mother” that get in the way of a more rational, open-minded understanding of the variety and richness of different kinds of families.
First line is a major red flag. So who is the dad? Do all three of them sit around the table at Christmas? Notice the fallacious logic, how can you not be something, if that said something doesn't even exist in the first place? The language is telling as well. "Fantasies" implies that she is a victim, or that these crude single mother type don't exist. Well they clearly do, for fucks sake, you even quoted the fucking numbers, just above!
 The structure of my household is messy, bohemian, warm. If there is anything that currently oppresses the children, it is the idea of the way families are “supposed to be,” an idea pushed — in picture books and classrooms and in adults’ casual conversation — on American children at a very early age and with surprising aggressiveness.
Translation: Messy implies I let my kids get away with shit. I'm that type of mother that tries to be friends with my children, go Boomers! The reason this idea of families is pushed so "aggressively" (again, note the language to make her look like a victim), is because it has worked, this idea of a family, for thousands of years. Read Confucius for fucks sake. P.S, no need for the comma. Bohemian and warm is correct.
At 2, my son, Leo, started to call his sister’s father, Harry, “my Harry.” When he glimpsed Harry’s chocolate-brown 1980s car coming down our block he would say, “My Harry’s car!” To me this unorthodox use of “my” gets at the spirit of what we’re doing: inventing a family from scratch. There are no words for what Harry is to him, but he is definitely his Harry.
The other day Leo brushed his mop of blond hair in front of the mirror and announced, “Now I look like Harry.” People are quick to tell me that this is not the real thing. But is it necessarily worse than “the real thing”? Is the physical presence of a man in the home truly as transfiguring, magical and unadulteratedly essential as people seem to think? One could argue that a well-loved child is a well-loved child.
This is just depressing, grim reading. The kid clearly wants his dad, and you turn the absence of father and love into something you can quantitate. If the child gets all that love from me, who cares? P.S, for someone that has a PHD, your grammar is woeful. Unadulteratedly? I'm not sure you can use that word like that...

To support the basic notion that single mothers are irresponsible and dangerous to the general order of things, people often refer vaguely to “studies.” I am not a huge believer in studies because they tend to collapse the complexities and nuance of actual lived experience and because people lie to themselves and others. (One of these studies, for instance, in order to measure emotional distress asks teenagers to record how many times in a week “you felt lonely.” Is there a teenager on earth who is a reliable narrator of her inner life? Can anyone of any age quantify how many times in a week they have felt lonely?) But since these studies provide fodder for those who want to blast single mothers, it’s worth addressing what they actually say.
Translation: I'm going to ignore all the data out there which proves my point wrong, because then I would be wrong, and I wouldn't be able to justify screwing up my children. Note, the emotive language, "I am not a huge believer". Her point about people lying to themselves is valid admittedly, but that makes it a bad study. Her logic is, there are bad studies out there, therefore all studies are bad. Shaming language example 5000, "provide fodder for those who want to blast single mothers". Poor innocent single mothers. Poor innocent slut who got it on with two fathers.

Studies like those done by the Princeton sociologist Sara S. McLanahan, who is one of the foremost authorities on single motherhood and its impact on children, show that conditions like poverty and instability, which frequently accompany single-mother households, increase the chances that the children involved will experience alcoholism, mental illness, academic failure and other troubles. But there is no conclusive evidence that, absent those conditions, the pure, pared-down state of single motherhood is itself dangerous to children.
Oh the irony. I'm going to say studies are bullshit, but I'm going to use one to back up my own points on single motherhood. Also, why is this person one of the formost authorities on single motherhood? Quote, or just cut this sentence out all together. You've a fucking PHD in English. That's schoolboy error shit right there, really bad writing. You also fail to understand cause and effect. Single motherhood creates poverty, just as poverty creates single motherhood. You can't have your cake and eat it. Onto the next paragraph.

PROFESSOR McLANAHAN’S studies over the years, and many others like them, show that the primary risks associated with single motherhood arise from financial insecurity. They also offer evidence that, to a lesser extent, particular romantic patterns of the mother — namely introducing lots of boyfriends into children’s lives — contribute to the risk. What the studies don’t show is that longing for a married father at the breakfast table injures children.

Again, you're refuting your own point. First, you seem to think that single motherhood comes down to loving the child only. Not true. By ending up with single motherhood, you've less money. This means that you yourself are making life worse off for your child. You make that decision, don't forget that. Point two is fine. Point three is so fucking stupid that I'm tempted to post one of those facepalm pics. Despite the fact that the longing for a parent clearly does injure (she uses injure rather than hurt, because injure suggests physical violence) children, you are being dishonest here. The word longing, replaces the word stability, which are quite different concepts believe it or not. Families with a mother and father, simply do better. This line is nothing more than feeling guilt about what you've done.

And Professor McLanahan’s findings suggest that a two-parent, financially stable home with stress and conflict would be more destructive to children than a one-parent, financially stable home without stress and conflict.There is no doubt, however, that single motherhood can be more difficult than other kinds of motherhood. In France, the response to the added difficulty is to give single mothers preferential access to excellent day care. Here the response is moralism disguised as concern and, at other times, simply moralism. 
Define destructive. Two trailer trash rapists would obviously be worse than you, but for all the "things are not so black and white" bullshit you've been spouting, you're making a black and white point. You're still playing to the law of averages. The average two parent household is more stable and happier than the average one parent household. The second line is just essentially, "don't judge me for being a slut!" On we go.
 The idea of “single mothers” may itself be the convenient fiction of a fundamentally conservative society. In fact women move in and out of singleness, married parents break apart, men and women live together without marrying, spouses or partners die, romantic attachments form and dissolve. Those who brandish research like Professor McLanahan’s ongoing Fragile Families study and Paul R. Amato’s 2005 paper on changing family structures to critique “single mothers” conveniently ignore the fact that such investigations rely on shifting, differing and extremely complex definitions of the households involved.
Things change, therefore single mothers are not wrong. Again, blame it on the right wing conservatives and certainly not yourself; it is nothing more than a convenient fiction after all. Not to mention the definitions really aren't that complex. This is just getting tedious.
What gets lost in the moralizing conversation is that there is a huge, immeasurable variety in households, and there are great ones and terrible ones, arduous ones and inventive ones, drab ones and exuberant ones, among families of all structures and economic strata.
It’s useful and humbling to remember that no family structure guarantees happiness or ensures misery: real life is wilier and more fraught with accident and luck than that. If you think that being married ensures a good life for your children you need only enter a bookstore and open any novel, or go to the theater and watch practically any play, or have dinner with nearly anyone you know. Suffering is everywhere, and married parents, even happily married parents, raise screwed-up or alcoholic or lost children, just as single parents raise strong, healthy ones. What matters most, it should go without saying, is the kind of parent you are, not whom you sleep with, and even that matters only up to a point.
1) Averages. The average single parent household will fare a lot worse than the average one with two parents. No one is denying what you are saying. But it the bigger numbers which we're after here.

2) The very last line is the most telling one here. Turns out this whole piece, was her trying to get off the hook, for doing something really fucking shitty. Who would have thought? I bet that if I told her that, I, a man, wanted to sleep with as many women as I wanted, I would be made man up. Oh well!
With the steep rise of children born to unmarried parents, America’s prevailing fantasies of family life no longer match the facts on the ground. But as the children born to unmarried women under 30 come of age in the majority, these faded archetypes will have to evolve. Our narrow, constricting, airless sense of the isolated nuclear family has not always, if we are honest, served us well, and it may now be replaced by something more vivid and dynamic, and closer to the way we are actually living.
Hey, lads, guess what? The nuclear family paradigm that worked for thousands of years is falling apart, so we should change society to accommodate this falling apart and do something else cause it's fresh and funky, rather than try and save something that is literally, the bedrock of civilization. Then again, my views are narrow. I wish I was liberal and then I could say your opinion is yours and mine is mine, and we are all individuals.
KatieRoipheSQ
Attack of the manjaws!





All of the liberal concern about single motherhood might more usefully be channeled into protecting single mothers, rather than the elaborate clucking and exquisite condescension that get us nowhere. Attention should be paid to the serious underlying economic inequities, without the colorful surface distraction of concerned or judgmental prurience. Let’s abandon the fundamentally frothy question of who is wearing a ring. Young men need jobs so they can pay child support and contribute more meaningfully to the households they are living in. The real menace to America’s children is not single mothers, or unmarried or gay parents, but an economy that stokes an unconscionable divide between the rich and the not rich.
1) Because conservatives are not concerned about single motherhood at all. It's an issue that everyone deals with, believe it or not.

2) No, you're wrong. Single motherhood screws up children in a plethora of ways. Being a widow is one thing, but being a stupid cunt who has two kids with two fathers, is another thing altogether. Single mothers should be shamed and ostracized. You're part of the problem, don't you get it?

3) Nope, single motherhood is much more than a "colorful surface distraction".

4) Why the fuck should young men pay child support to help out little princesses, why are we being shamed, even though the women here are equally to blame? The idea that we should get jobs, to pay child support, to live for you...well it's your cunt, I guess.

Academia is a fucking joke. If someone from Princeton with a PHD can write all this shit, then what hope is there for it? Gentlemen, this article is no more than the hamster in overdrive. It is your duty to strike without mercy, to beat its head in with reality, while you tap the hot sister's ass on the side.

I'll be in the pub.

2 comments:

  1. PhD in literature? What a waste of three years. She should have just read a book and flicked her bean

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, she didn't waste her time, she has a couple of books out on feminism and boys and shit.

      Speaking of screwing up kids:http://www.bakadesuyo.com/whats-the-single-strongest-predictor-you-will-38240

      Delete