One whole joojooflop situation

[vovat]

Why does Bush's microphone gaffe at the Group of 8 summit make me think of the Gabbo episode of The Simpsons? "All the kids in Springfield are S.O.B.'s." Seriously, I don't think his comment about wanting to "get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit" was such a big deal. But then, I'm not someone who thinks using a curse word is a sure ticket to Hell, and I get the impression that a significant part (which isn't to say a majority) of Bush's constituency does.

And speaking of uptight conservatives, there was a recent Bill O'Reilly segment lamenting how fewer women are getting married and having kids, which Bill blamed on secularism, feminism, materialism, and the media (which, unfortunately, doesn't end with "-ism"). They all want to concentrate on their careers, take vacations, and obtain material possessions without making the sacrifices involved in child-rearing. Nothing about how, in our present American society, it generally isn't necessary to have kids to help out on the farm. I've discussed my opinion on the societal pressure to reproduce several times in the past, but really, what's wrong with putting some priority on career? If nothing else, unless a woman is planning on marrying a really rich guy, wouldn't you HAVE to earn some money in order to raise all the kids O'Reilly and his ilk want her to have? And, for that matter, what's so bad about wanting to enjoy yourself (especially during the period when the concerns of adolescence no longer seem important, and the worries of old age haven't yet set in)? It isn't even necessarily a matter of wanting to take trips and get stuff. Maybe some people have (and I realize this might be a foreign concept in the No Spin Zone) hobbies? And really, isn't pursuing your own interests at the expense of having kids better than what seems to be in vogue nowadays, which is having kids AND trying to do all the trip-taking and material-obtaining, so that the parenting often turns out to be half-assed? And why does O'Reilly care so much whether people he doesn't know want to reproduce? So he can sell more copies of The O'Reilly Factor for Kids? Probably not. I think it's more the hallmark of self-styled traditionalists to want people to do what's always been done, whether or not it makes any sense.

And as if that weren't enough, Kirsten Powers (presumably Fox News's answer to criticisms that their network is made up entirely of cranky old geezers) said that fewer black women are getting married because the black men are all in jail. Yeah, she actually said that. Nothing like some good old-fashioned racism to go with your traditionalism, eh?

Comments

[jenhime.livejournal.com]

It's not just women who aren't getting married and having kids. This might surprise Mr. O'Reilly, but --GASP!-- it's also men. Marriage and child-rearing requires both a man and a woman, according to the social conservatives. It's not feminism that's keeping all those bachelors single. I'm a feminist (with a career) and I'm married (albeit with no kids). Feminism didn't keep me from getting married and neither did having a career. I have plenty of single female friends who are careerists/feminists who want to get married (and some want kids), but the Settling Down Thing (marriage/kids) seems to frighten the guys away much of the time. (And these are not "desperate" ladies who scare guys with constant talk of white gowns and baby clothes.)

Maybe if we allowed same-sex marriages (and allowed those couple adoption rights), people like O'Reilly could see the explosion of weddings and baby showers that they so desperately want. Of course, it would all be "rainbow tinted"...

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Marriage and child-rearing requires both a man and a woman, according to the social conservatives.

Yeah, O'Reilly was throwing couples not having kids and kids being born out of wedlock into one package. Of course, he made no distinction between totally single parents and parents who are in supportive relationships without marriage licenses. He bemoans the divorce statistics, yet doesn't draw the logical conclusion that, to many Americans (and people all over the world, for that matter), marriage means very little. Along with that, the position of O'Reilly and his ilk seems to be that marriage and kids are inseparable. Having kids out of wedlock is terrible, and getting married without reproducing is only slightly less terrible.

And yes, I also think it's weird how people will complain how there aren't enough marriages, and then turn around and forbid people from getting married. In addition to being opposed to same-sex marriage, O'Reilly has apparently come out against polygamy, saying that it leads to people taking child spouses. You'd think someone who was so obsessed with showing off his vocabulary would have looked "polygamy" up in the dictionary. I think polygamy is a somewhat thornier issue than same-sex marriage, for several reasons, but I can't say I'm morally opposed to it, and it seems pretty obvious to me that people can marry multiple spouses without any of them being minors.

[kristenjarrod.livejournal.com]

>>And as if that weren't enough, Kirsten Powers (presumably Fox News's answer to criticisms that their network is made up entirely of cranky old geezers) said that fewer black women are getting married because the black men are all in jail. Yeah, she actually said that. Nothing like some good old-fashioned racism to go with your traditionalism, eh?<<

That's hilarious. I wish I could've seen that and put it on tape. That's like something you don't say out aloud. ... sounds like something my mom would say out aloud though.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I think O'Reilly corrected her immediately. He didn't seem too shocked or anything, but I get the impression that that comment went too far even for him.

[kristenjarrod.livejournal.com]

Wow, I thought a comment like that wouldn't phase him at all!

[majellen.livejournal.com]

So wait...fewer WOMEN want to get married and have kids? Where the hell does he mention the MEN in this equation? Perhaps a big part of it is that now, we're seeing a lot of women start off with the idea of getting married and having kids, only to be left behind as a struggling single parent when Daddy decides to go elsewhere, or the couple has an issue and decide to part ways. I think it's all self-preservation. Now that divorce is more socially acceptable, women no longer have the assurance that men will be around for the raising of the child, where in the 1950's, divorce was a TERRIBLE AWFUL SINFUL THING and only the VERY WORST people did it, so once a woman DID get married, she knew the man would most likely be there to support her, whether he liked it or not.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

The segment did also mention rising divorce rates and such. One thing that one of the people (I forget whether it was O'Reilly himself or one of the two guests) said that I actually agreed with was that people nowadays are likely to break up because they don't feel they're getting all the excitement out the relationship that they've been conditioned to think they SHOULD have.

where in the 1950's, divorce was a TERRIBLE AWFUL SINFUL THING and only the VERY WORST people did it

Well, one problem with that was that, not only were people reluctant to get divorced for stupid reasons, but also for GOOD reasons (abuse, being cheated on, etc.). So there's no easy answer, but I do think the ridiculous notions some people have on relationships aren't helping matters much.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

You know, it's sad when, on the flip side, there are women who are ALL ABOUT being a stay-at-home mom and having lots of kids who CAN'T because the family can't pay the bills on the husband's income alone. Especially when they can barely pay the bills with BOTH incomes... ah, but I rant enough about that in my own journal, and it really has nothing to do with the O'Reilly Factor.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

It sometimes seems to me that a lot of politicans, newscasters, and other Rich People can't grasp the concept that other people, well, aren't rich. They presumably know that there are REALLY poor people (O'Reilly, for instance, is always talking about how he donates money to Habitat for Humanity, and lot of other wealthy public figures give to similar charities), but the idea that there are people who are making enough to live from day to day, but would probably be financially ruined by a new addition to the family (or an accident, or a natural disaster, or being fired) appears to be rather foreign to many.