Barack Obama has been accurately labeled a post-racial candidate—in a world where the rigid silos of skin color are crumbling and evolving into the new unity of a diverse America. As her presidential campaign winds down, I wondered, could we have considered Hillary Clinton a post-feminist candidate?
Unfortunately, the analogy doesn’t fit—or rather, the candidate, Clinton, doesn’t fit the analogy. It is precisely the bona fides of her feminism that exclude Hillary from being considered a post-feminist candidate—and, perhaps to some extent, created the fractiousness of her campaign that she and Bill alluded to as “sexist”.
The leading edge of the feminist movement preceded my own maturity by about 10 years. Choosing to go into a field that had been predominantly male, however, allowed me to observe the transition from traditional professional roles to improved gender equality. As a high schooler and college student in the late 60’s and early seventies interested in a career in the sciences, I had predominantly male professors in those fields. The women professors I observed, at university and, later, in medical school, were dynamic role models and groundbreaking leaders, but leaders who had compromised, adapted, and internalized the structure of the traditional male environment in which they labored.
There were less than 20 women in my medical school class of over 200 students in the mid-seventies—we were considered groundbreakers ourselves, the second class in the University’s history to have more than 1 or 2 women medical students. We were proud to be the vanguard of a new wave of doctors, a skirted army that didn’t answer to the call of “Nurse”. We admired and, at times, commiserated with our female professors about the challenges we all faced. But, despite our common ground, I noted significant differences between our generations.
Most probably, these differences were due to the accommodations these older women needed to make to survive in a traditional environment. These adaptations resulting from that worldview remained with the women even after they had achieved professional success despite frustrating odds. The women fell into two categories, I noted, which I labeled “The Southern Belle”, and “Calamity Jane”.
The “Southern Belle”s, by their own admission, had adopted a submissive role in the male hierarchy, a hyper-feminine, non-threatening pose that enlisted men’s support and facilitation through school and work. Male classmates and colleagues would find their “gentlemanly” traits inspired and would serve as helpful big brothers through the academic pathway.
The “Calamity Jane”s, alternatively, strove to mimic perceived male characteristics and stereotypes, and to exceed, with diligence and drive, the performance of their Alpha male colleagues. Eschewing traits that could be seen as “feminine”, i.e. weak, they adopted an uber-competitiveness that continued to leak through their demeanor even when their battles had been won.
Like Hillary, both of these types of women adopted techniques and skills to survive an immensely challenging social environment that otherwise limited their options. However, both their responses, and their ongoing professional success, were still guided by their memories and perceptions of that environment, i.e. an environment of inequity and discrimination.
Those of us who followed in their footsteps, in a truly post-feminist world, faced our own challenges without those preconceptions. Sure, we occasionally stumbled on pockets of sexism and discrimination—but we had an abiding faith and trust that equality was a value that would supersede these archaic oases of sexist control. Our relationships, our goals, and our philosophies were based on an implicit understanding of “Yes, we can” rather than our predecessor’s battle cry of “Yes, I will”.
I look at Hillary and her campaign, and acknowledge, even as a Barack supporter, that it was a great “college” try. But, the campaign reflected the years that Hillary went to college—and the world that existed then, a pre-feminist to feminist transition. Sadly, Hillary was never able herself to let go of her own experiences and transition comfortably and fully into a post-feminist world.
Jill Jackson is a writer, mother, wife, military veteran, and hard-core pacifist and liberal. She swallowed the red pill after 9/11.
True, HC belongs to an era where women had to compromise constantly to get ahead. However, if these compromises are indeed far fewer today, can we really say we live in a post-feminist era?
More specifically, can you say seriously that the incredible level of misogyny seen in the media during the Clinton campaign indicates that sexism exists only as a leftover from the past, in small ''pockets'' here and there ?
I think many women are fooling themselves thinking that we live in a post feminist era; true, the type of feminism incarnated by HC is passé, but quite a few men are still very much in a backlash mode against these recent progress, and women would be fools to ignore these deep seated feelings of hostility toward equal rights.
This has been a wake up call for me; I thought the US was one of the very best country for women in the world. I am sorely disappointed--I have watched closely the recent campaigns of Angela Merkel and Ségolène Royal in the German and French media; there was misogyny allright but nowhere as widespread, rabid and vicious as in the US media.
by
francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 332 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 5:16:55 AM
"I think many women are fooling themselves thinking that we live in a post feminist era; true, the type of feminism incarnated by HC is passé, but quite a few men are still very much in a backlash mode against these recent progress, and women would be fools to ignore these deep seated feelings of hostility toward equal rights."
Men and fathers who have been harmed by having their children ripped out of their lives while they get stuck with the bill are indeed in 'backlash' mode.
However, it is NOT deep seated hostility towards 'equal rights.'
Speaking only for myself as a father who had his children kidnapped away from me and sexually abused while in the mother's custody...
I have no problem with equal rights. I have a problem with feminism itself.
And to this father, feminism and equal rights are not the same thing any more. I support equality, but I can never support feminism.
I see feminism as a hypocrisy. A self-defeating hypocrisy, but that is just me.
Feminism movement should be aware today that every child and every father separated because of feminist policies in government, are potentially new enemies of feminism.
And now with over 30 years of feminism having destroyed fathers and children for a career, just count how many millions of fathers and children out there are now no longer fond of that which is blamed for their misery and often illegal and malicious separations.
Many of us blame feminism, not equal rights. If we had equal rights feminists would not be able to run off with the kids.
I support equal rights for all and equal treatment for all. But, I do NOT support feminism itself, and no longer do I think that feminism and equal rights are on the same page in my book.
Overturning patriarchial society in favor of a matriarchial society is not about equal rights now is it?
Many of us men in growing numbers no longer confuse feminism and equal rights. We can clearly see the difference and the results speak for themselves.
I think it is very important for the other side to realize this about some of us men. Above Francine said very clearly 'many men are in backlash mode and hostile towards equal rights' and I simply can not see it this way.
Equal rights is doing just fine. Any hostility men and fathers may feel is aimed directly at feminism itself so let's get this straight please.
Some of us men see feminism as females being macho while hating macho men for being macho men. Kind of a hyprocritical revenge of some females upon men. Clearly some of us men do not see feminism as equal or just.
Equal rights is something we should all strive for, while feminism is viewed as a social poison and any hostility and backlash is aimed squarely at feminism itself.
Oh, something else I wanted to add... Francine made it sound like some men are in backlash mode "temporarily" as though this mode comes and goes. Well it doesn't. Not for me anyways... Once a man has been pushed against feminism by family courts and other- once his mind crosses over to 'feminism is bad for me,' there is no turning back. There is no coming out of the "mode."
The backlash is incrementally increasing with each and every father separated from his children. 1/3 of all men behind bars across America today are put there by mothers forcing him to pay for kidnapping. Those fathers have no reproduction rights to their own biological children. All those children are to them is a check in the mail thanks to feminism.
This madness must end.
Children must be shared equally between both parents and both parents must carry the financial load equally.
Like I said before... feminism does NOT represent equal rights. Not any more. We men no longer confuse the two.
This is my opinion and how I see it...
KG
by
Levin Sheridan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 170 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 6:43:06 AM
Your comment confuses many issues, and makes many unsubstantiated assumptions.
First: while I can't speak to your specific situation, did it ever occur to you that family courts award custody to mothers because of traditional gender roles, not because of feminism? Most divorced mothers I know end up struggling to hold down a job and raise their kids. Often, they end up paying for the lion's share of kids' expenses, and sometimes the child support checks do not come. The fathers have the freedom to carry on their careers and new relationships during the week, seeing the kids on weekends.
I don't know what your definition of feminism is, but if it's all based on family court decisions, then I don't think most people would agree with your definition.
by
Amy Fried (39 articles, 108 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 207 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 9:54:51 AM
Your comment confuses many issues, and makes many unsubstantiated assumptions. "
OK.
First: while I can't speak to your specific situation, did it ever occur to you that family courts award custody to mothers because of traditional gender roles, not because of feminism?"
Not any more. For some of us fathers, we see handing the kids over to mom as more of a levelling of the economic playing field. Sort of government's way of putting the financial burden upon the men even after they are removed from the home for what ever reasons. The men in effect have become economic servants. Financial slaves. Literally extortion via our children.
Let me explain the pre-feminism and post-feminism social reversal this way:
Forty or fifty years ago in the traditional American family was the father as head of the household and usually the bread-winner, while usually the mother was the backbone of the household and stayed at home.
Back then when the man or woman wanted out it worked something like this... man would kick the woman the curb with nothing. Man, bread-winner, usually kept the house and the kids and everything else. That was BEFORE feminism.
Today, I think because of the previous social imbalance and injustice to women as I described, that because of that former situation, government, by implementing feminist policies in government have now turned things around in 2008.
Today, to level the playing the field, the women are handed the kids and the men are made to pay.
The family still gets to break up if that is what they want to do, but now the women get half of the assets, all of the kids, and often keeps the house and most of his paycheck from then on and she controls the kids!
And he is now free to move on? Yeah right! Broken and destroyed inside! Let me just say that when a man and father has his children in his life he has something to live for and work for. Take this away from a father and leave his house empty and broken and you leave the man empty and broken in many cases. He no longer has hope. He no longer cares. His dream to be a father shattered. And for what?
And now let's discuss alimony... Nah... enough already.
So no, I do not see this as serving traditional values. I view this more in terms of a gender war on men called feminism that has been on the march for 30 plus years.
"Most divorced mothers I know end up struggling to hold down a job and raise their kids. Often, they end up paying for the lion's share of kids' expenses, and sometimes the child support checks do not come."
This can also be said of the mothers too! I know a few men who have won custody of their children as well and the mothers don't have to pay as much or when not paying at all don't usually wind up behind bars like the fathers often do. Surely all can see the unfairness of this system?
All sides will have to work together to find a solution. The solution is not one camp over another.
"The fathers have the freedom to carry on their careers and new relationships during the week, seeing the kids on weekends."
I can understand where you are coming from, but it is not all that easy for the men as it sounds here.
I wanted it the other way around. I wanted to keep the kids while the mother was FREE to run off with her new romance.
Instead she filed false charges of threat of domestic violence when there was none and severed my relationship to my children so she could run off with her new man who she married and had another son by.
And then came the sexual molestation charges against the step father. My 13 year old daughter sat on the stand and pointed the finger at him for what he did to her.
I as a father was unable to protect my children from some strange man- any man the mother wanted to choose to put my kids in with. I meant nothing. I was scum of the earth to everyone with just the hint of a threat of DV when there was none!
Nobody would listen to me while they were all ganging up on me, the step father included.
My children would not have been molested and terrorized if they had stayed with me.
There is no way I can attribute this to traditional family values. I can only attribute it to sexist war upon men known as feminism and that is my opinion now and forever. The courts hand our children over to the mothers and send the men the bill under threat of jail if they don't pay. And now they take drivers licenses and put men out of work too!
What's next? Are they going to put stocks back in public court yards and shackle fathers for public floggings?
When will the madness and attacks upon good men end is what I would like to know? When will all men treat all women as equals? When the violence on both sides end? Where and when will all of this gender warfare end?
I am afraid that so long as gender exists, so too shall the conflict. Perpetually changing through time.
"I don't know what your definition of feminism is, but if it's all based on family court decisions, then I don't think most people would agree with your definition."
My opinion is not based on family court decisions.
I think family court decisions are based upon it- meaning feminism and feminist policies put into action within government.
I equate feminism with a disdain for that which is uniquely male. I equate feminism with a group of humans who want another group of humans to change for them. This is at the heart of it in my opinion.
I may confuse the issues, but I am not confused about them.
KG
by
Levin Sheridan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 170 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 10:48:58 AM
40 or 50 years ago, the courts would award the kids to mom. There were few divorced families when I was a kid, but all (including my own) lived with the mom.
If there was abuse of the children why are they not now living with you? What did the guardian ad litem suggest? Do you even have visitation? Why not?
Your issue has nothing to do with feminists...it has to do with the prejudice that most family courts have for mothers to take care of children. That's been around a lot longer than feminism. If anything, a feminist judge would rule more fairly...for what is in the best interests of the children.
Is there something you're not telling us?
by
camanokat (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 48 comments)
on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 4:07:51 PM
Francince said: "there was misogyny allright but nowhere as widespread, rabid and vicious as in the US media"
Misogyny = hatred for all women.
This is another sad misdirected attack. Propaganda.
When a man shows dislike for feminism, it is then turned into "he must hate ALL women!" And this is not true!
Men can love women while depising feminism.
And men can be totally sexist and make sexist comments while loving women, not hating them! Making sexist comments on TV DOES NOT equate into a hatred for all women- except to maybe a feminist.
It is sad when disdain for feminism is smeared into a false statement that he must hate all women. Pure propaganda and this shows an unwillingness to accept or even think there could be something wrong with and worth changing about feminism. Nope, something is wrong with the man- he hates women.
It sounded like francine was using this propaganda to justify her thought positioning?
But let's turn this around... what do you call it when a woman hates a man?
Today, many of us call it feminism.
Feminism has a problem with ALL men. I have read in the past feminist writers who say things like "all men are sexual predators" or "all men are automatic violent offenders who have not been caught yet."
What I am hearing here is that all men are bad how Nature made us. What I am hearing is a fear and dislike of the male gender as though something were wrong with us and we need changing.
Feminism = a hatred for all things male, and is JUST AS WRONG as misogyny.
And you are right about one thing Francine, it is rabid here in the USA on both sides... Sexism is alive and well and not going anywhere it seems.
KG
by
Levin Sheridan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 170 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 7:00:18 AM
Who says Hillary CAN'T be a feminist? Certainly not me! She can be whatever she wants to be, but don't expect me to vote for it! Not after taking my children and giving the mother more rights to our children than I the biological father had! This must change!
Hillary can be a feminist all she wants to and hopefully the organized fathers across America numbering in the millions have helped to make it clear to Hillary we don't want any more!
We fathers are still relishing in Hillary's concession speech when it came down to admitting it was over, but the glass ceiling now has 18,000,000 cracks in it...
You could hear the women in the hall gasp and boo at her concession.
30 plus years of feminism hit the glass ceiling and came to a screeshing halt on international television and it was awesome.
Maybe there are 18,000,000 cracks in it... but one thing is for certain, hopefully it will not be Hillary and her brand of feminism that breaks through.
This is a win for fathers all across America and around the world it gives them hope seening Hillary lose! Hope that all is not lost- not yet anyways.
KG
by
Levin Sheridan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 170 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 7:28:14 AM
I get so carried away on one point I overlook another!
Georgianne, you made the comment Bill Clinton was the first "black president?"
And I would like to know why you think this way? What qualifies Bill Clinton as the first black president?
-------------------------------
Another point about feminism I want to make and this might get some of the fellas steamed around here because truth hurts, but I am all about my human truth and not hiding it.
I studied a writer named Jack Karouac who lived here in central Florida. He said that "a good writer will write about the things least talked about."
I never forgot that...
So, in memory of Jack Karouac, let me reveal some of my humanity in relation to feminism...
Truth be told, feminism can only affect the relationship men and women have out in society. Feminism can change the rules of the playing field, but NOT neccessarily the players...
For example, with my own humanity I will admit this truth...
feminism has made me more careful of how I relate to women only while I am relating to them.
Once a man is removed from the presence of a female is when sexist judgments begin.
Men with men will be respectful to a woman in their presence, but as soon as she leaves the men will instantly size her up in a most sexist way such as "Man, she's a hottie!" Or "Good Lord what a bi**h!"
And I mean instantly too! Faster than you can snap your fingers!
This is a human truth many men hide from women and even from their own wives... in her presence he may be all about Mr. Nice guy, but as soon as he is in the car on the way to the store to shop for her to pick up some tampons is when Mr. Nice guy is yelling curse words all safely sealed up inside the car where no one can here him! G*&%# darn it why don't she get off her **%&$#((%^# and go get it for herself? Why do I always have to Go^#%$(#@) kind of thing...
This will never change!
So while feminism may change the way we interact, feminism is not going to change the Nature of the Beast!
Men will be men and will continue to be men no matter what the women think or believe.
Feminism has temporarily driven masculinity to underground status. A temporary submission in the over-all picture of humanity.
Every male born has to learn the social rules as he grows only if he so chooses, but first and foremost, he learns what it means to have a penis. And this is a priority to all males.
Feminism will never ever take that away from us- at least I hope not! lol!
What will be will be.
I am what I am says I.
KG
by
Levin Sheridan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 170 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 8:29:45 AM
I have received some private emails over this comment!
Funny how the fellas will admit to certain things in private but neevvver say them out here! Fer shame fellas! Cat got your tongue? Or are you whipped?
One emailer wanted to say that yes indeed we males do size up instantly, but that we do it for both men and women. And on this point I shall agree, but that was not the thrust of the discussion at the time.
Guys, have the guts to put your words out here! You're leaving me hanging! I see how it is! lol!
KG
by
Levin Sheridan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 170 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 12:13:20 PM
Sorry, but Hillary is not the best example for Feminism...
I have a good many friends who are what I consider feminists.These women make no excuses for themselves, they simply strive to be the best they can be, and continually work to make this happen….Some of you know that I am an Ultra-Marathon bicyclist, and I see people from all walks of life pursuing this sport for a host of reasons.
One woman, in particular, is a Professor at a university within a few hours drive of my area.She chose the sport, because it epitomizes the essence of self sufficiency (particularly during the unsupported rides) recently we rode a 600K together, and later she will be participating in the Cascade 1200K (that is 750 miles on a bicycle with a 90 hour time limit.)She applies the tenacity that she applies to the bike, to her every day life.No excuses, only results.
There are many women in the sport.One, while working on her Doctoral Thesis, competed in the Race Across America, and is currently a clif bar sponsored athlete.No excuses, only results.
Currently, in our political world, we have women who call themselves feminists who use the fact that they are women to advance, or, in Hillary Clinton’s case, she used her femininity to increase her poll numbers.Maybe the politics of running for president is different than the real world, but nobody should be selling out who he/she is in order to be the example, for all others, of what one should strive to be.
All that I hear from politicians, male and female are excuses, and ways to point fingers at others for their own failures.(for example, bashing the oil companies for the fact that there was no MEANINGFUL energy policy for more than 30 years….)For example, politicians who point the finger at a president and say that one of the few people in the nation who can not pronounce “nuclear” correctly, somehow managed to trick “the most intelligent people in government”
Please….Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that said “The Buck Stops HERE!!”He made no excuses, he did what he had to do, and regardless of the diverse opinions of his actions, everyone must respect the fact that no matter what happened, he took responsibility for his actions.
I have enormous respect for the two women I mentioned early in my comment, I see their actions as examples of true feminism, because they both have that "BUCK STOPS HERE" attitude, and they refuse to allow anyone to put them into any sort of submissive role.
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 591 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 10:04:35 AM
Back to Hillary: As a feminist, I'm terribly disappointed with many of Hillary's followers, who seem to feel sorry for themselves & her, falsely blaming sexism for her loss. Yes, there were some disgusting comments in the media. I wrote about some of them on this website. But those comments were not why Hillary lost. She lost because her campaign was arrogant and incompetent. Why she paid millions of dollars to Mark Penn, I'll never understand. Despite his hefty salary, he apparently only put in a part time effort, actually undermining her message with his lobbying gigs. There were even reports that he mistakenly thought that the California primary was winner take all! Talk about incompetence!
And of course, giving short shrift to caucus states was incredibly stupid. She showed that she couldn't make sound financial decisions, and ran as if she were royalty, entitled to the nomination.
As a feminist, it saddens me to see this misplaced anger among Hillary supporters. But it was especially disappointing to see her campaign turn around and play the race card, and then cry "discrimination!"
Obama won because he ran a smarter campaign. Now all Democrats need to work together to defeat John McCain.
by
Amy Fried (39 articles, 108 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 207 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 10:23:57 AM
Your views about feminism are so wrong, so far off the mark, it's almost comical.
I wished I had the time--and the patience-- to clear up all of these misunderstandings, but I don't, and it''s not acceptable to hijack a thread to discuss the issues you raise anyway.
Just one point though, because it makes my blood boil. How in hell can you associate sexual abuse of children with feminism? Feminists have been fighting Sexual abuse of children and women for decades, it's one of the defining goals of the feminist movement; so by definition, a woman who knowingly lets her boyfriend sexually abuse her kids is NOT a feminist, she is an accomplice in one of the worst abuseS of male power there is.
by
francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 332 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 12:08:18 PM
"Just one point though, because it makes my blood boil. How in hell can you associate sexual abuse of children with feminism?"
Easy. Women have steadily gained a stronger foothold on reproductive rights. One person here said they attributed court decisions to traditional gender roles, meaning mothers are better for children somehow than the fathers.
In any case, when women have this kind of an advantage over fathers to be able to take our children away from us and away from our protection because mothers have gained MORE and SPECIAL rights to our children ABOVE and BEYOND fathers is when the custodial mothers are in a position to place our children into the hands of step fathers and potential child molestors.
From my perspective, a father's perspective who has lived to see this happen, I know all too well what feminism has earned for women or mothers in this case. All too well.
How I wish I could have prevented her from taking the children How I wish I could have prevented the mother from ever even being ALLOWED to put my children any where NEAR another man I do not approve of.
Why did this happen? Because I feel of a gender biased system of government affected by 30 plus years of feminist policies with NO/ZERO accountability.
I hope you can see where I am coming from. I lost my children because of it and they were put into a home with a child molestor by the mother because she had some special right and privilige to my children above and beyond my rights to them and this is the heart of the issue and there is no way around it in my opinion.
I have got to be respected as the father and I have got to have some say as to who my children come into contact with and who they don't. Clearly handing them over to mothers is not always in the children's best interest.
I just wish the courts saw it that way. Things must change. And that is all I am saying around here.
I wanted my children in my life. Nothing else mattered to me. I watched helplessly as they were abused and I could do nothing to prevent it and all I can ask is why and you can clearly see where I lay the blame.
I know it is not a popular opinion, but so be it. Someone should have figured out how wrong it is to alienate fathers from their homes, children and paychecks and freedom and call it equality.
I have a court order showing she took 65% of my paycheck by court order and put me out in the street unable to pay for the roof over my head. I lost it all. And all I can do is ask why?
She got 65% of my paycheck, she got 100% of her paycheck, and she was also enjoying her new husband's paycheck. She got three of them while I got less than half of one of them and no children.
The cold steel dagger of feminism struck me in my heart twice. I feel the pain to this day and beyond. It never goes away.
Things are different today and I know very good and well why...
I want my sweet and innocent little girls back.
A father...
by
Levin Sheridan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 170 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 12:30:36 PM
"it''s not acceptable to hijack a thread to discuss the issues you raise anyway."
I thought my discussion was on target. This article is titled "Feminist Consciousness" and this is exactly what I am discussing. Feminism and its effects.
Jill said:
"Those of us who followed in their footsteps, in a truly post-feminist world, faced our own challenges without those preconceptions. Sure, we occasionally stumbled on pockets of sexism and discrimination—but we had an abiding faith and trust that equality was a value that would supersede these archaic oases of sexist control. Our relationships, our goals, and our philosophies were based on an implicit understanding of “Yes, we can” rather than our predecessor’s battle cry of “Yes, I will”.
And this "sexist control" Jill was speaking of above is exactly what my words were all about. That relationship she speaks of above. Only I went deeper into detail on some of it.
I have to wonder why I am being asked to be silent. Is this what we really want? To oppress and silence a growing number of humans?
I did not mean to hijack the thread and I will sit back now and let you tell me what you think.
KG
by
Levin Sheridan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 170 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 12:49:46 PM
K.G. I do not have a lot of sympathy for most fathers I know. I think the hardest single job in the United States is that of a single working mother.
I am a minister of a church in the poorer area of our city of about one hundred and thirty thousand people with the major state university about twelve blocks away. I have apartments all around our church and a couple of trailer parks. You know what the good folks across town call "Trailer Park White Trash" and "Apartment Welfare Rats."
I have about thirty children from Kindergarten through fifth grade living with single working mothers. This morning at four thirty Keri pulled herself out of bed and left to open up our local Cracker Barrel restaurant about eight miles away across town. I called her fifth grade daughter Kaitlan at six o'clock and then at 6:15 to make sure she was awake and headed for the shower. I pulled up in front of their apartment at seven ten; we proceed to drive about twenty miles picking up children from houses, apartments and trailer parks. When the van was full we, we dropped those fifteen kids off at the church and started out for the second load living closer.
We pulled into the church parking lot at eight twenty, lined up with the other Vacation Bible school children with me down in front to start off the opening assembly with pledges to our country, to our Lord and to the Bible. I reversed the trip starting at eleven forty-five. Almost every child was delivered to a "home alone" house.
When I picked up fifth grader Whitney and fourth grader Brit at seven twenty-five and twelve miles from the church, Crystal just came home from an all nighter at the local V.A. Retirement center. She will sleep from noon to seven while Whit and Brit do who knows what in the trailer park. When I pulled up in front of the shack called a house to pick up second grader Steph and third grader Elaine, there were empty fifths of bourbon, gin and rum thrown on top of the roof. Their dresses or pants are filth, they are hungry, and they stink, smell like pee. Most organizations will tell these thirty children that if there is no adult with you then you cannot come to our church. They contaminate the "good kids" because they have no manners, are un-bathed, make poor grades, break things and always want something.
K.G.
Where are the dead beat Dads who had rather go to prison than get a decent job and have to pay child support? Where are those dead beat boy friends who hit sexually on kids as young as seven and eight years old while Mom is at work?
I am not as worried about abortion as much I am worried about Gary, and Dallas, and Cody and Jeremiah and Frankie, and Racie, and Jacob and Casey who need help right now. They are not speculations. You can reach out and touch them.
These young women like Crystal who is slender built, but has no teeth, I thought she was over forty years old but is just twenty-nine years old is typical of these poor single mothers. Their chidren like Whit and Brit will make our prostitutes, our drug addicts, our mothers of more children that we will throw into the trash heap because no one gives a damn, and I say that as a Southern Baptist minister who has been a pastor over forty-five years old.
Three heart attacks, five bypasses with seventeen days in ICU or not, as long as God gives me breath, I will do everything and lead my church to do everything to help these kids love God, love themselves and love others by staying in church and making good grades in our public schools. It is a whole package; to leave out one of these goals with these children is to fail in every one of them. Three years ago we graduated sixteen from high school and ten are in college; two years ago we graduated ten from high school; all ten were honor students and all ten are in college. These kids that I will pick up in the morning and every day this week are a new batch of hope for hopeless kids. Will we be able to do what we did three years and two years ago? No, but it will not be because we have not tried our best.
We do not care about feminism one way or the other, and we do not care about race one way or another. We just care about kids. Many of our kids are mixed Heinz 57 just as the rest of us are. Good grief. They are kids. Angelina, Kaitlan 2, Daysha, Ajee, and Quincy are Black. The rest are White, but all belong to Him Who created them and loves them.
Phil
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 10:15:36 PM
K.G. I do not have a lot of sympathy for most fathers I know. I think the hardest single job in the United States is that of a single working mother.
I cannot let this slide. The Single working father gets no sympathy from you. the fact that the case KG made happens in the US due to a flaw in the system does not seem to matter.
Feminist activists, if they wanted to make the case that they were truly in favor of advancing women as equal members of society, would be doing everything in their power to stop this sexist treatment of the single father.
Are there dead beat dads out there? Absolutely, and they should be dealt with accordingly. However, this fact does not mitigate, at all, the issue of the dead beat mom.
Shouldn't the welfare of the child be considered at all? Shouldn't the child be placed with the parent who can care for the child in the best way?
I will go along with you and say that in most cases it IS the mother... No doubt, No question, No hesitation. However, I believe what KG is saying is that it should not be automatic, because automatic rulings can, like in the case he sited, lead to tragedy.
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 591 comments)
on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 8:06:37 AM
