second-rate or best” (Schaffer 1). Using the same method for which they are so
vehemently opposed (mass media), many conservative organizations
crusade on behalf of the supposed superiority of married-couple nuclear families,
brandishing all other kinds of families second-rate–or worse (Schaffer 1)
Quality is much more important than gender structure, not whether a house contains a
man, women, daughter, son, three goldfish, and a golden lab named Max. “However well
intended and appealing, most of the claims made by family values crusaders are blatantly
false as well as destructive” (Schaffer 1).
A high conflict marriage is more damaging to a child than a divorce, yet these groups urge
parents to stay together at all costs. Results come from a Kaiser Permanete study show
that sixty-eight percent of “youth highly exposed to safety threats lived in two parent
homes” (Shaffer 2). If the youth was to be separated from such problems, then they have a
better chance for success. This assault endangers kids by promoting parental conflict,
destruction, and fraud (Schaffer 2).
If the accusations were merited in hard data, then their rhetoric deserves much attention.
However, right now, little evidence points either way. The data they base their crusades
on is inconclusive, as this sociologist said.
As a sociologist, I can attest there is absolutely no consensus among social scientists on
family values, on the superiority of the heterosexual nuclear family, or on the supposed
evil effects of fatherlessness. The claim that intact two-parent families are inherently
superior rests exclusively on the misuse of statistics and on the most elementary social
science sins–portraying correlations as though there were causes, ignoring mediating
factors, and treated small, overlapping differences as gross and absolute (Schaffer 2,3)
A missing father is not the apocalypse some suggest. In a Kaiser study, 44 percent of
troubled teens talk to their mother; 26 percent to fiends; and only 10 percent talk to their
fathers. A missing person, while still possibly affecting the child, has not the raved impact
(Schaffer 1). “Poverty and unemployment can more reliably predict who will marry,
divorce, or commit or suffer domestic or social violence than can the best toned measure
of values yet devised” (Schaffer 3).
Harping on the superiority of married biological parents and the evils of fatherlessness
injures children and parents in a wide array of contemporary families, including those with
gay or lesbian parents” (Schaffer 3).
These parents wanting to go back to the 1950s hold these few gems of the 1950s coal
heap in their hands and wish life could be like the epitomized dreams the memories have
become. Absent from these gems is the nagging thought of the absence of minority and
black rights, the constant fear of death, the inability of women to procure a job in male
dominated jobs, and the previous pain of World War II and the great depression.
Obviously the work environment changed. More women are in the workforce, both for the
enjoyment of work and to support their kids. Their types of jobs have changed as the
previous barriers that kept them from contemporary male dominated jobs have been
outlawed. Companies, due to increasing outside and inside pressure, have restructured the
work environment for maximum profit, an action that is not inherently bad. Maximum
profits also comes through employee loyalty and dedication, both of which take initiative
on the employers part to provide the worker with a positive work environment.
Most parents, unlike claims, do not escape into work from the family. In an Ohio Study
66% percent of respondents said that work is not a relief from family and 86% said they
wanted to spend more time with the family. 77% of respondents were more “fulfilled at
home” and 90% were happier. Obviously work is not a relief from family (U of C 1).
The conditions of the 1990s are different not worse; reverting to the 1950s is an absurd
misconception. The 1950s was never perfect, the only family that was perfect was the TV
sitcom families, who existed only in Hollywood. If this is true, than they fall for the very
same mistake they reprimand modern society for, ideals and TV. Despite everyday
problems, the conditions that the average child has improved, not diminished. The societal
ills that might have resulted from the changes far outweigh the disadvantages.
This action is possible but the steps required to reverse society to the 1950s sitcom would
be infinitely huge. First, eliminate any sort of modern communications devices: a
computer, fax machine, email, pager–items the advocates say cause the loss of innocence.
Second, introduce the constant pressure of annihilation. Third, eliminate the gains in
women’s rights and minority rights. Fourth, eliminate the modern presence of the media
that while can be harsh for many children does help bring forth ills and provide kids with
education into adulthood.
Those parents who keep their kids sanctioned from “the real world” face the difficulties of
removing their kids from a radically different outside world. A few parents view that
children should be kept free from the presence of any sort of harmful media. While they
undoubtedly they feel that their child is protected from harm, these parents fail to realize
the ills when they release an uneducated child into the world. For protecting against rape,
and other crime, education is the biggest prevention. Educating children about these
problems and the motives behind such actions does require overprotective parents to delve
into the taboo field of sexual education.
The nostalgic say that children are unready for any sort of tribulation. Information
desensitizes kids–no longer is right and wrong presented in either a smile or a spanking.
Without clear direction and parental authority at home, these nostalgic parents warn that
children will grow up to an adult who cannot tell right from wrong. The emerging books
from authors like Shalit, who is not even a sociologist, inevitably harm children. “These
books have a more insidious message: they equate innocence with ignorance” (Paul 62). A
parent overly involving themselves in a child’s life is a poor choice, often leading to
rebellious as the child tries to escape from the bounds placed on him or her.
Impacts do exist by removing a kid from outside resources. If a child is guided though
interpretation of ‘adult’ knowledge the child will beready to handle the outside world.
Often those like Wendy Shalit “mistake the acknowledgement of rape for its occurrence
and chooses the illusory security of ignorance over the equivocal rewards of reality”.
Women who reject innocence will “gain a field of vision free from the modern equivalents
of powered puffs and parasols and downcast lashes” (Paul 65)
Educated children fare better when released into the world: they have taken the first step.
When a protected child is released into the outside world, they have not had the
intellectual training to handle the problems adults must face. Plus, overprotective parents
often have to deal with the rebellion of their kids, a quite ironic result when the child
delves happily into the mayhem which the parents tried so hard to protect the child
against. The Medveds only allow six hours of G rated videos per week, the oldest child
cannot read a book after 1960, and any sort of offending material is turned off. “Should
the news come on during the family’s Sunday drives, the pound parents recount, ‘our
children immediately beg us to turn off the radio,’ lest they hear something that ‘spoils
ther contentment’ and when a haunting song from the soundtrack of showboat [plays],
their daughters scream “fast forward! fast forward!” because they “wouldn’t even consider
lyrics that predict sadness or trouble on the horizon’” (Paul 64).
Lastly, knowledge will be with us; better get used to it. In the information age one cannot
escape the barrage and why should they? As long as a parent is there to guide a child
knowledge can be a wonderful thing.
This essay does not downplay the importance of parents; they remain as essential as ever.
However to boldly say that society diminished is a opinion rooted in half forgotten
memories. Today there is so much more for a child to learn and do, and every child has an
equal chance to attain these goals. To revert back to the 1950s is a goal stemming from
frustration of a generation of parents, a frustration that while often justified, is not solvable
with a blind leap to an American culture as different as the 1850s to the 1900s. So let the
action stop where most grandparents stop: “life was better when I was a child”.
Undoubtedly today’s current generation will be saying the same thing too.
Boes “Convention on the Rights of the Child” America—America Child Rights Boes.org
Gardner, Geroge E. The Emerging Personality: Infancy Through Adolescence New York:
Delacorte Press, 1970.
McCallum, Albert A. “Who Will Raise the Children” Prostitutes, Margarine, and
Handguns. 15 Apr. 1999
Orwell, George. “A Child’s Life” A Collection of
Essays. Sand Diego:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1946.
Paul, Annie M. “The New Age on innocence.”
Psychology Today. April
1999: 62-66
Schaffer, Scott. “Bad Review: The War Against Parents” Rev. of The War Against
Parents by Sylvia Ann Hewlett and Cornel
Stacey, Judith. “The Father Fixation” In the Name of the Family: Rethinking Family
Values in a Postmodern Age
5 May 1999
Raasch, Brian. Personal Interview. 14 Apr. 1998
West. 1 Nov. 1998 Bad Subjects: Political Education for Everyday Life. 13 Apr. 1999
UCSF “The California Work and Health Survey—1998
Story #2: The State of Working Parents in
California Graphic Summary for Publication
September 8, 1998.” 8 Sept. 1998 University
of
California at San Fransisco. 12 Apr. 1998
U of C “May 8, 1998 Release From the Survey of Ohio’s Working Families: New Family
and Work Survey at University of Cincinnati Fund Family is Where the Heart is.”
University of Cincinnati/The Kunz Center for the Study of Work and Family 9 Apr. 1998
White, Burton L. The First Years of Life. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1975.
shapeType20lineWidth22225lineColor13948116fShadow1shadowOffsetX0shadowOffset
Y-12700shadowOriginY32385
Bibliography
Boes “Convention on the Rights of the Child”
America—America Child Rights Boes.org
Cullen, Loanda “Confronting the Myths of Single Parenting” Single Parenting in the
Nineties 15 Apr. 1998. Champion Press. 9 April 1999
Gardner, Geroge E. The Emerging Personality: Infancy Through Adolescence New York:
Delacorte Press, 1970.
Gesell, Arnold, Frances L. Ilg, and Louise Bates Ames. Infant and Child in the Culture of
Today: The Guidance of Development in Home and Nursery School. 1943. New York:
Harper and Row, 1974.
McCallum, Albert A. “Who Will Raise the Children” Prostitutes, Margarine, and
Handguns. 15 Apr. 1999
Orwell, George. “A Child’s Life” A Collection of Essays.
Sand Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1946.
Paul, Annie M. “The New Age on innocence.” Psychology
Today. April 1999: 62-66
Piaget, Jean. The Child and Reality: Problems of Genetic
Psychology. New york: Grossman Publishers, 1973
Schaffer, Scott. “Bad Review: The War Against Parents” Rev. of The War Against
Parents by Sylvia Ann Hewlett and Cornel
Stacey, Judith. “The Father Fixation” In the Name of the Family: Rethinking Family
Values in a Postmodern Age
5 May 1999
Raasch, Brian. Personal Interview. 14 Apr. 1998
“Two Parent Families by Ethnic Group: 1994 US Census Data” University of Virginia. 5
May 1999
West. 1 Nov. 1998 Bad Subjects: Political Education for Everyday Life. 13 Apr. 1999
UCSF “The California Work and Health Survey—1998 Story #2:
The State of Working Parents in California Graphic
Summary for Publication September 8, 1998.” 8 Sept. 1998
University of California at San Fransisco. 12 Apr. 1998
U of C “May 8, 1998 Release From the Survey of Ohio’s Working Families: New Family
and Work Survey at University of Cincinnati Fund Family is Where the Heart is.”
University of Cincinnati/The Kunz Center for the Study of Work and Family 9 Apr. 1998
White, Burton L. The First Years of Life. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1975.