I've always been interested in the left's attempts to remove men, and even more specifically, fathers, from the essence of the social fabric. It would seem the latest shot across the bow, and one of the most desperate that I've seen since the APA published "Deconstructing the Essential Father," is Peggy Drexler's new book, "Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms Are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men."
Glenn Sacks does an excellent job of not only pointing out the obvious propoganda, but noting portions of the book where the actions of the children that took part in Drexler's "study" contradict that propoganda. Sacks notes that Drexler wastes no time in painting a picture of the healthier boys raised by lesbians.
Drexler asserts that boys raised by lesbians “grow up emotionally stronger,” “have a wider range of interests and friendships,” and “appear more at ease in situations of conflict” than boys from “traditional” (i.e., father-present) households. Fatherless boys “exhibit a high degree of emotional savvy…an intuitive grasp of people and situations.” Best of all, sons of lesbian couples are much more willing to discard traditional masculinity than boys trapped in heterosexual households.
Please note the last sentence, especially the "boys trapped in heterosexual households" part. Translated it means that the little boys raised by lesbians are much more easily trained to act like little girls, instead of burgeoning young men. Furthermore, boys raised in heterosexual households are "trapped" into being raised to be men. Only a dyed-in-the-wool feminist would see a positive in stripping boys of all hint of masculinity. Drexler even provides examples of the "new men" that are the poduct of lesbian relationships.
Fiona’s son paints his nails, while both of Maria’s sons dance ballet. Ursula’s son chose sewing and cooking for his electives in 7th grade. Kathy's son has rejected playing baseball as being “too competitive”—no surprise, because in their local, father-led baseball league, “the better players get more playing time.”
At the same time, Drexler seems painfully unaware of the abuses suffered by the mothers of the children that seems to result from having a total lack of a masculine disciplinarian in the house.
...her lesbian moms, particularly the “social” (i.e., nonbiological moms), cheerfully endure insults and disrespect that no parent should ever tolerate. Carol’s son calls her “stupid.” Bianca’s son calls her “lazy.” Martha’s son hops into her bed and effectively tells Martha tough luck, sucker--go sleep somewhere else.
Of course a father would never put up with that kind of behavior, but apparantly that is a bad thing, according to Drexler. But then, Drexler misses many obvious conclusions, not the least of which are the boys transparent need for a father figure.
When one of Brad’s two moms picks him up from the daycare center after work, every day she has to pry the six year-old off of the leg of an after-school worker named Ron to whom Brad is—pun intended—quite attached. A less determined researcher might see this as evidence of Brad’s need for a dad. Not Drexler, who instead tells us that, given Ron’s presence, Brad’s mom “knew she didn’t need to worry about Brad’s lack of an everyday father in his life.”
Julia’s little boy says “I want a daddy.” Darlene’s little boy tells his mom “we could find a daddy and he could move in with us.” Three year-old Ian--fatherless by the decision of his “single mother by choice” mom Leslie--watches TV with mom, continually pointing at male figures on the screen and saying “there’s my daddy.” Leslie explains “no, we don’t have a daddy in our family,” but little Ian doesn’t get it and continues to point and ask. A problem? Not according to Drexler, who writes “Will some little boys trail after men they don’t even know, perk up at lower-decibel voices, or hang on to the pant legs of the men who cross their paths? Maybe.” But whatever it is, she assures us, it isn’t father hunger.
Drexler appears to be so desperate to reduce a father's role to a negative that she is willing to ignore obvious signals being sent by her own study subjects. For many of us who have been paying attention to the forces whose primary goal is to eliminate the father and therefore eliminate the man, this book and it's conclusions come as no surprise.
If one were to add gay marriage into the mix, which most experts agree would be utilized far more by gay women than gay men, it becomes apparent why the feminist lobby has worked so hard to enact it. Simply put, gay marriage would go a long way towards eliminating men from the rearing and social training of children, clearing the way for a new, more enlightened generation of women to raise boys "right."
But, as Sacks rightly points out, fatherless children are at far higher risks for all kinds of negative pathology like crime, drug use, pregnancy and a host of others. The data on fatherless children and behavorial disorders is disturbing to say the least. In fact, fatherless children are:
5 times more likely to commit suicide.
32 times more likely to run away.
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders.
14 times more likely to commit rape
9 times more likely to drop out of high school.
10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances.
9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution.
20 times more likely to end up in prison.
Of course, none of this seems to matter to Drexler, the gay lobby, or the pro-gay marriage crowd, who seem to care very little about future generations of our children. To them, children are an experiment, a by-product, and a pesky roadblock in the way of their selfish social agenda.
It should be becoming very apparent by this time that healthy children have very little to do with that, despite Drexler's and others attempts to pretend the opposite.
No comments:
Post a Comment