Was Dan Quayle exactly right when he criticized *Murphy Brown*?

[Wyldgusechaz]

Today, 28% of white children are born to a single mom.. 50% of Hispanic children are born to a single mom. 71% of black children are born to a single mom( Juan Williams calls that number chilling, disorienting). There is an NFL running back with 9 kids by 9 different women.

In 1960 the numbers were 3% for white children, and 24% for black children. I am sure I will hear some anecdotal story on how a mother raised terrific children by herself but children of single moms as a whole do poorer in all ways.

We sort of popularize single parenthood as OK, but its not, per the stats. Why is it OK now?

 

[TurkeyWithaSunburn]

Just because a woman isn't in wedlock doesn't mean they don't have a partner. Nor does being married mean that the kid/s are going to be any better.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Dan Quayle wasn't right at all.
We all know that it's best statistically for a child to have a mother and father when being raised, but some people don't have that option. From deadbeat parents to deaths in the family, some kids have no choice but to be raised by a single parent. That doesn't mean that the kid is doomed to fail or is going to be a strain on our society.

If we followed Quayle's ideal completely, then the widowed parent would have to immediately marry someone else so that the kid can have a better chance in surviving. And that's just not true.

Spoken as a child raised by a single parent... and dammit, I think I turned out alright. :wink:

 

[simcha]

Ugh, do we have to dig up this crap? Quayle was good for only one thing during his term in the White House. He was put "in charge" of looking for asteroids that might hit the earth. They gave him an Atari game system so that he could play "Asteroids" and so that he could blast all those pesky potentially Earth-destroying asteroids away.

 

[submit452]

Dan Quayle wasn't right at all.
We all know that it's best statistically for a child to have a mother and father when being raised, but some people don't have that option. From deadbeat parents to deaths in the family, some kids have no choice but to be raised by a single parent. That doesn't mean that the kid is doomed to fail or is going to be a strain on our society.

If we followed Quayle's ideal completely, then the widowed parent would have to immediately marry someone else so that the kid can have a better chance n surviving. And that's just not true.

Spoken as a child raised by a single parent... and dammit, I think I turned out alright. :wink:

That in my mind is correct. Dan Quayle was to the vice presidency what Bush is to the Presidency. When All else fails and you're an idiot and republican blame the culture.

 

[bobabooey69]

Yeah right, getting advice from THIS guy:

YouTube - POTATOE

I am SO glad he slipped into obscurity, but maybe he could come out of retirement to match wits with Bush.

 

[Mem]

Why is it OK now?

What a MAROON

 

[Phil Ayesho]

"okay" does not mean its preferred nor that its as good as two parent homes.


It simply means its no longer acceptable to stigmatize women for giving birth out of wedlock.



I think it is nearly impossible to raise truly well adjusted children without both parents.... but then if one of those parents is an abusive alcoholic jackass... its possible to screw children up even more with both parents...

I think women who opt to raise children on their own do a disservice to the child, because, if a girl, you will end up with a young woman who has no real value associated with a masculine presence... no example for her to emulate in how to love a man...
If a boy, you will raise a boy without any example to emulate of how to be a supportive and loving father...

You end up with children even less likely to form lasting relationships. Children who have never witnessed a loving couple having to negotiate the their needs and expectation with a mate.

But then.... most women are not really choosing to raise the child alone... there's a child that needs raising and the father simply skipped.

But again... this trend is only going to get worse as our culture continues to demonize everything male and continues to cop the tude that men are always wrong and women's perspectives the only valid ones.


When a man who does right gets no respect, no admiration in return for that effort... he learns quickly that the effort is wasted.

When a man is gouing to be seen as a liar and a dog, no matter how he behaves... well he might as well BE guilty of the thing he is going to be condemned for.


Look at the themes that run thru the male oriented cultures.... and you will see the motif of "respect" repeated over and over...

We fantasize about those things we desire that we are least likely to get.... that we crave the most.... that we don't get enough of....

Men are absent because they are not valued for what they bring to the table.

 

[Industrialsize]

Today, 28% of white children are born to a single mom.. 50% of Hispanic children are born to a single mom. 71% of black children are born to a single mom( Juan Williams calls that number chilling, disorienting). There is an NFL running back with 9 kids by 9 different women.

In 1960 the numbers were 3% for white children, and 24% for black children. I am sure I will hear some anecdotal story on how a mother raised terrific children by herself but children of single moms as a whole do poorer in all ways.

We sort of popularize single parenthood as OK, but its not, per the stats. Why is it OK now?

What rock did you crawl out from under? It's 2008, families look very different than they did in the 60's. Not better, not worse, just different.

 

[Bbucko]

No No No No No & No.

Dan Qualyle's "Murphy Brown" speech, if I remember correctly, was one of the first, if not the first, use of the term "family values" by a prominent American politician. Hearing that expression made my blood run absolutely cold.

In theory, there's nothing inherently evil about expounding on how the family is the bedrock of Western society: I'd even agree with that. However, the context in which the term was used then (and ever since) is a huge jump from "mom and apple pie", and draws quite sharp lines in the shifting sands of the Culture War.

What it meant, quite simply, is that some Americans have a monopoly on virtue, happiness and relevance, and that others can be excluded from consideration as depraved and destructive. Prominent among these were homosexuals (who, in theory, are incapable of forming nuclear families), feminists and other wanton women.

These types, in their 21st century incarnations, make up the bulk of LPSG members, BTW.

Murphy Brown was a ground-breaking (and frequently hilarious) hit TV show, but it was fiction. Candice Bergen played her brilliantly, but she was not real in any sense of the word. The show, if the OP ever watched it, was about a smart, aggressive, extremely progressive woman over 40; she was a career-obsessed curmudgeonly misanthrope with no patience for anyone.

If the OP ever saw the show, he'd remember the story arc in question. Murphy re-unites with an old flame, a fellow TV journalist played by Scott Bakula, and they wind up having sex, which results in her pregnancy.

The fact that she could have chosen to abort was discussed in detail. MB was vociferously Pro-Choice. Instead, she chose to keep the baby (which is one the choices inherent in being Pro-Choice), even though Scott Bakula's character was totally unsuited to fatherhood.

So, what, exactly was Murphy's "crime"? She had been essentially celibate throughout the show, always too busy (and jaded) for romantic love, so she would not have had birth control handy. Was she foolhardy in having unprotected sex? Was she a slut for having sex at all outside of marriage (even though she was a grown woman over 40)? Should she have aborted, which would have been an even greater crime in the eyes of Conservatives?

 

[faceking]

Today, 28% of white children are born to a single mom.. 50% of Hispanic children are born to a single mom. 71% of black children are born to a single mom( Juan Williams calls that number chilling, disorienting). There is an NFL running back with 9 kids by 9 different women.

In 1960 the numbers were 3% for white children, and 24% for black children. I am sure I will hear some anecdotal story on how a mother raised terrific children by herself but children of single moms as a whole do poorer in all ways.

We sort of popularize single parenthood as OK, but its not, per the stats. Why is it OK now?

Most of the responses here are just blatant anti-right drivel... without even addressing statistical fact. Bed wetting liberals are classic to tie in plight with stats... so I'm curious what the poverty, crime, rates, etc... are among single parent children then layer on the ethnic aspect.


Exactly.

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

I knew the answers I was going to get. And I posted this in the most eye catching way I could, DAN QUAYLE!

I am a staunch neocon right wing reactionary. Of course I am 100% in favor of TWO PARENT FAMILIES and wouild discourage one parent families if I could. Now the 2 parent families can be 2 gay men or 2 lesbian women or a gay and lespian mom dad, in my world.

What I love is that no one will draw a line in the sand even tho lines in the sand get drawn whether you like it or not. Are there any lines in the sand? Or do lines only get drawn in issues that might rile conservatives?

No wonder folks here are unhappy. Or post in a way that seems unhappy.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

There is no such thing as anti-right drivel.

Because right wing rhetoric is the very definition of drivel.



Reason is reason.... truth is truth and evidence is evidence.

And neither right nor left wing agendas are founded in reason nor evidentiary argument.


Both parents are necessary to condition children who will have a good grasp of relational dynamics between loving spouses.
There are sound reasons to prefer a two parent household... but we are far past the point of cultural fascism that ostracized women for listening to the empty promises of some hard up teenage boy.

"family values" is an idiotic bumper sticker in lieu of real thinking.

Especially now, in the face of what 12 years of right wing ascendency has brought us... anyone espousing the right wing as a "better' way of looking at the world is either myopic, foolish, or a tool.
And anyone who thinks the "lefties" will do a better job is similarly deluded by wishful thinking and propagandistic hyperbole.


Transcend labels of left or right... don't let pundits nor pastors do your thinking for you... don't eat the pablum you're being spoon fed....

Think for yourself.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

PS- "Red" states have much higher incidence of both divorce and birth out of wedlock...
The one thing you can count on from the moralistic right is their hypocrisy.

 

[faceking]

PS- "Red" states have much higher incidence of both divorce and birth out of wedlock...
The one thing you can count on from the moralistic right is their hypocrisy.

That's cause thems dumbfucks raised in single family shitholes ain't votin'.

 

[Bbucko]

I knew the answers I was going to get. And I posted this in the most eye catching way I could, DAN QUAYLE!

I am a staunch neocon right wing reactionary. Of course I am 100% in favor of TWO PARENT FAMILIES and wouild discourage one parent families if I could. Now the 2 parent families can be 2 gay men or 2 lesbian women or a gay and lespian mom dad, in my world.

What I love is that no one will draw a line in the sand even tho lines in the sand get drawn whether you like it or not. Are there any lines in the sand? Or do lines only get drawn in issues that might rile conservatives?

No wonder folks here are unhappy. Or post in a way that seems unhappy.

A real neocon right-wing reactionary would not support the LPSG's right to exist. It's 75% porn, which is nothing I've ever seen or heard a REAL reactionary tolerate.

Poseur.

 

[ZOS23xy]

There was an Esquire Magazine article that did an interview profile of Mr Quayle, and he wanted to appoint Clutch Cargo to a science post. Poor Dan had to be brought down to earth and be told that he was a cartoon character.

George Senior used DQ to front ideas that would get heavy criticism so he could avoid such things.

As a thinker, Quayle was not good. He was about as good to the current imbecile in office.

 

[220483]

I remember seeing that episod, with DAN QUAYLE criticising 'MURPHY BROWN'... although understanding NOW that he wasn't right, because a persons own will is the most important thing - IT'S free will, even when third parties - children - are mixed in the meddle.
for HIS time I think IT was the right decision. allowing monoparental families isn't the best or greatest thing. NOT that you shouldn't have the choice, but incoranging it ISN'T all that right!

BUT that's just mho!

 

[Mem]

I remember seeing that episod, with DAN QUAYLE criticising 'MURPHY BROWN'... although understanding NOW that he wasn't right, because a persons own will is the most important thing - IT'S free will, even when third parties - children - are mixed in the meddle.
for HIS time I think IT was the right decision. allowing monoparental families isn't the best or greatest thing. NOT that you shouldn't have the choice, but incoranging it ISN'T all that right!

BUT that's just mho!

Also worth pointing out is how ridiculous it was in the first place for him to criticize a fictional character.

 

[Xcuze]

Matt Hughes is in the new members forum!!

sorry, carry on....