Another Father’s Day has come and gone, which means another flood of conservative posts declaring fatherhood is dead and Liberal Society was found standing over its corpse, red-handed. From Megan McArdle’s guest-blogger, Tony Woodlief:
It’s striking that when one hears of someone being “mothered,” this evokes the image of caretaking, but “fathered” simply means, to most of us, that someone has successfully spread his genes.
Shame on us, whoever we are. By the way, who is Woodlief talking about? What group of people does he think simply spreads their genes without sticking around to raise the fruit of their loins? It can’t be white conservatives, who love God, apple pie, Mom, fatherhood, and bombing foreign countries. Who on earth could he possibly mean? I just can’t figure it out.
The sociobiologists have explained this in the language of costs and benefits, which suits everyone just fine, I suppose, except that at the end of the day we are left with the reality that a man who fathers children and then does not subsequently care for them really is not much of a man.
Conservatives have a fine grasp of the obvious. They enjoy telling us that two head are better than one, war is hell, and a hero ain’t nothin’ but a sandwich.
The statistics are undeniable and well-rehearsed by now — children abandoned by their fathers are at considerably greater risk for poverty, crime, abuse, and perhaps worst of all, repetition of the sad cycle that has helped reduce the title to denoting the remnant of a sex act.
Okay, I was with him until “reduce the title to denoting the remnant of a sex act.” I am not quite sure what he means by that, but I am guessing it has something to do with sex, or sex-like acts, which have been demoted from something sacred and sublime when Daddy and Trophy Wife #4 do it in the hot tub to the tawdry remnants of sin-stained lust when Brockton, Jr, and Muffy do it in the back seat of his new Camaro.
It’s something we associate with the lower classes, though I’ve seen too many wealthy executives do something similar, abandoning their children not financially but emotionally.
Now, this is why even white people hate white people sometimes. The rules of public discourse state you can only refer to “the lower classes” if you are (1)British aristocracy, (2)several centuries old, and (3)looking through a monocle at the time. Otherwise you just look stupid.
More than one retired captain of industry has confessed to me, with the quiet sadness of someone who knows there is no redemption, that his success wasn’t worth it.
Excuse me, I seem to have something caught in my throat.
Cough*bullshit*cough. There, that’s better.
And you can only use “captain of industry” if you’re Rudyard Kipling, which Mr. Woodlief evidently thinks is the case. But worse than the faux Victorian phraseology is the faux sentimentality-the kind Woodlief said his class was immune to. I picture his captain of industry in a wood-panel lined office, mementos of the British Raj scattered around the room, raising his sorrowful eyes, and with trembling lips confessing his deepest sorrows to Tony Woodlief, God Whisperer.
“I thought I was happy,” the Captain of Industry said. “I made billions by cutting costs and outsourcing jobs. Sure, there was the occasional cloud of poisonous gas or massive oil spill, but I had mansions with indoor-outdoor pools and hot and cold running hookers. But alas, it was all for naught. No amount of money, fame or power can replace the love I threw away by sending Brockton Ebeneezer Scrimshaw, Jr, to boarding school and summer camp. What is success compared to that?”
It’s easier to achieve acclaim in the workplace than the home, however, and so we fathers gravitate to the places where our cleverness or hard work will find reward, and abrogate our duties at home, and imagine that we are doing this all for our families, when really it is because we are cowards. The most intractable business problem, after all, is infinitely more solvable than a wayward teenager. And so do we become failures as we grasp for accomplishment.
They reached for the brass ring of accomplishment and all they got was the fool’s gold of self-deception.
My prayer is that fathers will turn their hearts back to their families. Not in a sentimental way, but in the hard things that are always the true measure of the heart, in the sacrifice of ourselves for these children who did not ask to be here but who are with us, and who need us, and who deserve for the verb “father” to mean something richer than it has come to mean.
Flogging fatherhood to conservatives with delusions of persecution has made fatherhood richer for some people. The rest of us will have pray that fathers will be able to hold on to their jobs and feed their families after our upper classes are through poisoning their water, blowing them up, outsourcing their jobs, and cutting their employment insurance.



27 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About TBogg
RSS/XML Feed
So, this McArdle Kid’s big gambit at becoming known as a Serious Writer about Life & Stuff is a clumsy reiteration of “Cat’s In The Cradle”, only with extra classism?
Um. Well. Ah, don’t give up the day job, son.
Woodlief thinks he’s clever, but he’s spinach.
and not in a good way.
Does it occur to this nitwit that the usage of “to mother” and “to father” might have their origins in the behavior of the respective parents from the distant past, before the institutions Mr. Woodlief so bravely and concern-trolledly defends were even born? When human mothers (whom everyone could identify and associate with each specific baby) suckled their young, while human fathers (whom no one could identify with any certainty) were off doing something else?
Woodlief, in his cultural studies, should stick to “‘dja ever notice–we DRIVE on a PARKWAY and PARK on a DRIVEWAY! What’s the deal?”
a clumsy reiteration of “Cat’s In The Cradle
I knew that post sounded familiar.
This is exactly what I’d expect from a guy who wrote a book about parenting that cribbed from Marvin Olasky and Megan Cox Gurden. And is it a coincidence that Mama Gurden has reappeared, even tangentially, on TBogg’s blog. I think not!
These are the same wankers who think wistfully of the days when Mom could use the “just wait until your FATHER gets home” threat to bring their wayward kids in line while she prepared dinner in anticipation of HIS homecoming. Oh, and they’re of course also the same sadistic creeps who are perfectly fine with FATHER then whipping out the belt/ruler/paddle to show the kids some firm love on a regular basis — “spare the rod” and all that bull.
In fact, their callous demand that “all your uterus are belong to us” is equaled in ignorance and arrogance only in their failed belief that parenting (and, perhaps, particularly, fathering) is all about the parent and not about the kid.
Now, where’s tbogg with his mystery guest poster — I’m expecting Rahm Emanuel, Karl Rove or Tiger Woods here; the longer you keep us waiting, the higher the bar is set…
Sounds like Tony got stuck bringing the yogurt pops and juice boxes two weeks in a row after Soccer Tots. Those other dads are mean pricks.
Especially that one looks like Obama.
He’s arrogant.
This pinhead is what a friend of my brother’s colorfully referred to as “a wasted fuck”; by way of punctuation he would say “You might as well of jazzed on the sidewalk, as had that.”. His estimates seldom seemed to be wrong.
Ok, I got out of the boat to read the Lopez link at NRO, which almost gave me a rage stroke. My favorite part, after she goes on about Obama mentioning his own father had left him, was this:
“Tradition has its benefits.”
Just think about how much more Obama could have achieved if his father hadn’t left him.
Woodlief never met a generalization that he didn’t like.
Speaking both as someone who was (and still is, though my son is now 37) a long time single father and who is a cultural anthropologist with a specialty in gender, this is absolute total horseshit (as is sociobiology for that matter). Both “fatherhood” and “motherhood” are highly variable, fosterage and adoption are widespread and fairly common, and in the rare truly egalitarian societies parents share responsibility about equally.
Please do not insult spinach, of which I am quite fond. Whackjob is clearly diseased elephant shit.
Actually, no. Woodlief is dim, dull & cliched, but he seems the exception in MeganWorld : sincere. Like the Great Oz : A fairly good person, just a very bad writer. If Megan someday needs a babysitter, not a columnist, she could do a lot worse.
You won on the first post! Nicely done. My impulse was just to write, “Wank, wank, wank,” but I like yours better. And, SusanofTexas, I love your vicious dissection of this wanker’s words.
Too many words, people. This asshat is a fucking inbred, moronic shit stain.
I only wish I had read this on Father’s Day.
Fuckin’ retard.
I was going to ask what the fuck is sociobiology, but you answered it for me. Thanks.
GAH!
SusanofTexas, strong in you the win is.
Balderdash! [adjusts monocle]
The rest of us will have pray that fathers will be able to hold on to their jobs and feed their families after our upper classes are through poisoning their water, blowing them up, outsourcing their jobs, and cutting their employment insurance.
An eloquent summation. Thanks, Susan!
Susan, this is a brilliant post. Beautifully written, and perfectly concise.
I imagine “captain of industry” is also popular in Ayn Rand fanfic.
BTW, that KLO post is just vile. Either she’s a diehard hack or diehard zealot, or both. Whatever one thinks of Obama on other issues, his Father’s Day remarks are pretty balanced and common sense, with a personal touch as well. The wingnuts just cannot or will not turn off attack mode, even when their latest Great Satan says ‘fathers are important.’
I understand that your readers are unaccustomed to subtlety, but I think it’s pretty clear that he is employing “lower classes” and “captains of industry” with tongue firmly in cheek, i.e., people think of “those others” who have out-of-wedlock children as “lower class,” but in reality this is a problem at every socioeconomic level (and therefore to call those with less income somehow “lower,” as if they exhibit pathologies not apparent among the wealthy, is silly), and likewise, those “captains of industry” are really masters of nothing if they’ve not cared properly for their children.
It’s fine to vehemently disagree with someone, but my experience is that neither understanding nor civility is advanced when we assume the worst possible motives among those with whom we disagree.
Was “with the quiet sadness of someone who knows there is no redemption” tongue in cheek too? It sure did made me laugh.
No, I think people who use such terms in such a matter-of-fact way, without hyperbole or humor, are saying what they mean. Plus, if you read the Corner you see that faux Victorianism is popular on the right.
I have no desire whatsoever for civility or understanding. I attack ideas and attitudes that I think are hurtful and damaging to the poor, and of course the right is free to continue to support the rich and powerful.
I think the point of subtlety is precisely that one uses a term matter-of-factly, but juxtaposed with other words that highlight its ridiculousness.
The value of civility and understanding is that we not end up hacking one another apart with machetes, no? Nobody has ever been won over by attacks, and everyone here already agrees with you, so it seems that you are doing nothing other than inspiring people to hate more deeply the folks they’ve already dehumanized in their minds. Which is precisely what you think conservatives do.
It’s the height of intellectual arrogance to imagine that everyone who disagrees with you does so out of some deep moral flaw, or stupidity bordering on retardation. I’m a former socialist and former atheist, and was quite certain anyone who didn’t agree with me had to be batty, but eventually I discovered that there are intelligent, thoughtful conservatives and Christians who really do care about the poor and the downtrodden and all those folks you defend by telling other people who agree with you how terrible the people who don’t agree with you really are.
Just as there are socialists and atheists who are also intelligent, thoughtful people who really do care. My point is that disagreement with you is not proof of venality, which is something progressives of earlier eras recognized.
Or put it this way — when everything you write comes off like a caricature of WorldNetDaily, only with left-wing happy-words instead of right-wing happy words, then it might be time to reconsider how you’re conceptualizing your fellow human beings.
The time for civility and understanding was before our two wars and major recession. You Christians sat on your asses and let Jesus’ Best Buddy commit immoral acts while you pumped your fists in the air and yelled fuck yeah! You intelligent, thoughtful conservatives voted in men who gutted the treasury and nearly destroyed the economy and threw thousands into poverty.
And now you want the people who warned you for over ten years that you were wrong and that your decisions would have disastrous consequences to be polite and not bring up uncomfortable facts. You want the people you called traitors and dirty, smelly, naive, cowardly fools to try to understand you.
You want us to shut up so you can go on pretending that you did the right thing for the right reason, instead of letting blind loyalty and sanctimonious, smug, self-satisfaction lead you to trust the wrong people and ignore facts.
I don’t care about your religion or political party or motives or desires. Learn from your mistakes instead of complaining that everyone is mean to you because you supported venal, greedy men who raped your country and are still doing it while you are complaining about being misunderstood.
Surely you’re intelligent enough to understand that this is hyperbole. Christians didn’t uniformly applaud immorality any more than liberals and atheists uniformly applaud stupidity on the left. And once again, you assume the worst motives (“sanctimonious, smug, self-satisfaction”).
Here’s a thought experiment: what if I took the comments on your essay — the vulgar, dehumanizing, ill-considered comments, and used that to justify a worldview in which all leftists are God-hating, profane, economic illiterates? When we focus on an extreme (and small) faction, in other words, we run the risk of assuming that this faction represents broader social groups. I understand that there are hateful, warmongering conservatives who call themselves Christians, but there are also conservatives and Christians who disagree with those actions, and those who reluctantly agree, and those who agree and have thoughtful (though errant, one could argue) reasons.
I understand it gives you catharsis and pleasure to speak this way about people you don’t know, and to me, someone you don’t know, but if you have any loyalty to the heart of liberalism, I encourage you to be more grace-filled, even to those you believe are dead wrong. Most people want what’s good, and have good in them. We just get misguided about our facts and theories. Perhaps even you.
“…your readers are unaccustomed to subtlety…”
You have to admire the ballsiness of someone who preceeds a lecture on civility by insulting everyone in the room.