Obama's straight talk on fatherhood

[yllus]

Obama's straight talk on fatherhood

There have been plenty of comparisons lately between former U. S. senator Robert F. Kennedy and current Senator Barack Obama, particularly earlier this month with the 40th anniversary of Kennedy's 1968 assassination. Frankly, we've been unconvinced. Senator Obama's rhetoric has always seemed hollow and vapid by comparison to Kennedy's, like a bumper sticker compared to a philosophy text.

That was, until Mr. Obama's blunt -- and meaningful -- Father's Day address at a largely African-American church in Chicago.

The benevolence of welfare, for instance, was a fashionable "given" among intellectuals and politicians during the mid-1960s' War on Poverty. While running for president in 1968, though, Senator Kennedy called for a substantial reduction of lavish personal payments from Washington because welfare robbed "a man's soul of the dignity that comes from having a job and providing for one's self and family."

Mr. Obama, on the other hand, has been a platitude factory, spewing forth an assembly line of high-sounding, yet meaningless statements on hope, unity and "reigniting the America we were once so proud of."

Until Sunday.

Speaking at the 20,000-member Apostolic Church of God, Mr. Obama confronted directly the social upheaval caused by father-absent homes: "Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important," he sermonized. "If we are honest with ourselves, we'll admit that too many fathers also are missing, missing from too many lives and too many homes.

"They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men," he added. "We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception? what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child. It's the courage to raise one."

He then cited a litany of problems that arise when children grow up without a father's influence -- "five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison."

Speaking to a largely black audience, it would have been so easy for Mr. Obama to blame fatherlessness on others -- on racism by whites, on a lack of government spending or societal indifference. Yet he did not take the easy road. Reminding his audience that he was raised mostly without a father, he planted the blame squarely on individuals and communities.

We are certain many of the solutions Mr. Obama would entertain to cure the plague of fatherless homes are ones that involve state intervention and expensive programs -- policies we would be opposed to. Still, we can't quibble with his diagnosis.

Aside from the topic of sermon and Senator Obama's take on it (which I agree with), I was surprised to see in an editorial in The National Post, a Canadian daily with affirmed conservative leanings. In comparison, articles regarding Senator McCain have mostly read as response items to Senator Obama's speeches, or to offer up longshot ideas that might win him the election. Just seemed like a bit of a sign.

 

[Genx87]

I am surprised this topic didnt have a thread already. I was tempted to applaud Obama's talk on the grounds that it needed to be said by a high profile politician in my own thread. But figured somebody else would carry the torch.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: yllus
Obama's straight talk on fatherhood

There have been plenty of comparisons lately between former U. S. senator Robert F. Kennedy and current Senator Barack Obama, particularly earlier this month with the 40th anniversary of Kennedy's 1968 assassination. Frankly, we've been unconvinced. Senator Obama's rhetoric has always seemed hollow and vapid by comparison to Kennedy's, like a bumper sticker compared to a philosophy text.

That was, until Mr. Obama's blunt -- and meaningful -- Father's Day address at a largely African-American church in Chicago.

The benevolence of welfare, for instance, was a fashionable "given" among intellectuals and politicians during the mid-1960s' War on Poverty. While running for president in 1968, though, Senator Kennedy called for a substantial reduction of lavish personal payments from Washington because welfare robbed "a man's soul of the dignity that comes from having a job and providing for one's self and family."

Mr. Obama, on the other hand, has been a platitude factory, spewing forth an assembly line of high-sounding, yet meaningless statements on hope, unity and "reigniting the America we were once so proud of."

Until Sunday.

Speaking at the 20,000-member Apostolic Church of God, Mr. Obama confronted directly the social upheaval caused by father-absent homes: "Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important," he sermonized. "If we are honest with ourselves, we'll admit that too many fathers also are missing, missing from too many lives and too many homes.

"They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men," he added. "We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception? what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child. It's the courage to raise one."

He then cited a litany of problems that arise when children grow up without a father's influence -- "five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison."

Speaking to a largely black audience, it would have been so easy for Mr. Obama to blame fatherlessness on others -- on racism by whites, on a lack of government spending or societal indifference. Yet he did not take the easy road. Reminding his audience that he was raised mostly without a father, he planted the blame squarely on individuals and communities.

We are certain many of the solutions Mr. Obama would entertain to cure the plague of fatherless homes are ones that involve state intervention and expensive programs -- policies we would be opposed to. Still, we can't quibble with his diagnosis.

Aside from the topic of sermon and Senator Obama's take on it (which I agree with), I was surprised to see in an editorial in The National Post, a Canadian daily with affirmed conservative leanings. In comparison, articles regarding Senator McCain have mostly read as response items to Senator Obama's speeches, or to offer up longshot ideas that might win him the election. Just seemed like a bit of a sign.

It was all fine and good until the part right after where he said the gov't would step in and do all these things for people. Taking "responsibility" does not mean doing the right thing and then expecting a gov't handout. But if you ignore where he ends up - the speech was fine.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I am surprised this topic didnt have a thread already. I was tempted to applaud Obama's talk on the grounds that it needed to be said by a high profile politician in my own thread. But figured somebody else would carry the torch.

There was one but I think it was quickly locked.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: yllus
Obama's straight talk on fatherhood

There have been plenty of comparisons lately between former U. S. senator Robert F. Kennedy and current Senator Barack Obama, particularly earlier this month with the 40th anniversary of Kennedy's 1968 assassination. Frankly, we've been unconvinced. Senator Obama's rhetoric has always seemed hollow and vapid by comparison to Kennedy's, like a bumper sticker compared to a philosophy text.

That was, until Mr. Obama's blunt -- and meaningful -- Father's Day address at a largely African-American church in Chicago.

The benevolence of welfare, for instance, was a fashionable "given" among intellectuals and politicians during the mid-1960s' War on Poverty. While running for president in 1968, though, Senator Kennedy called for a substantial reduction of lavish personal payments from Washington because welfare robbed "a man's soul of the dignity that comes from having a job and providing for one's self and family."

Mr. Obama, on the other hand, has been a platitude factory, spewing forth an assembly line of high-sounding, yet meaningless statements on hope, unity and "reigniting the America we were once so proud of."

Until Sunday.

Speaking at the 20,000-member Apostolic Church of God, Mr. Obama confronted directly the social upheaval caused by father-absent homes: "Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important," he sermonized. "If we are honest with ourselves, we'll admit that too many fathers also are missing, missing from too many lives and too many homes.

"They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men," he added. "We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception? what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child. It's the courage to raise one."

He then cited a litany of problems that arise when children grow up without a father's influence -- "five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison."

Speaking to a largely black audience, it would have been so easy for Mr. Obama to blame fatherlessness on others -- on racism by whites, on a lack of government spending or societal indifference. Yet he did not take the easy road. Reminding his audience that he was raised mostly without a father, he planted the blame squarely on individuals and communities.

We are certain many of the solutions Mr. Obama would entertain to cure the plague of fatherless homes are ones that involve state intervention and expensive programs -- policies we would be opposed to. Still, we can't quibble with his diagnosis.

Aside from the topic of sermon and Senator Obama's take on it (which I agree with), I was surprised to see in an editorial in The National Post, a Canadian daily with affirmed conservative leanings. In comparison, articles regarding Senator McCain have mostly read as response items to Senator Obama's speeches, or to offer up longshot ideas that might win him the election. Just seemed like a bit of a sign.

It was all fine and good until the part right after where he said the gov't would step in and do all these things for people. Taking "responsibility" does not mean doing the right thing and then expecting a gov't handout. But if you ignore where he ends up - the speech was fine.

which part are you talking about?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

The rhetoric is nice, but what does Obama propose as a solution? To enslave men and force them to care for children they may never have wanted to have been born in the first place? I get the sense that he might be anti-men's rights. Perhaps he should blame fatherlessness on out-of-wedlock births and on women not being responsible enough to have abortions.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
It was all fine and good until the part right after where he said the gov't would step in and do all these things for people. [/b] Taking "responsibility" does not mean doing the right thing and then expecting a gov't handout. But if you ignore where he ends up - the speech was fine.

which part are you talking about?

I read it 2x and couldn't find that message either.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: yllus
Obama's straight talk on fatherhood

There have been plenty of comparisons lately between former U. S. senator Robert F. Kennedy and current Senator Barack Obama, particularly earlier this month with the 40th anniversary of Kennedy's 1968 assassination. Frankly, we've been unconvinced. Senator Obama's rhetoric has always seemed hollow and vapid by comparison to Kennedy's, like a bumper sticker compared to a philosophy text.

That was, until Mr. Obama's blunt -- and meaningful -- Father's Day address at a largely African-American church in Chicago.

The benevolence of welfare, for instance, was a fashionable "given" among intellectuals and politicians during the mid-1960s' War on Poverty. While running for president in 1968, though, Senator Kennedy called for a substantial reduction of lavish personal payments from Washington because welfare robbed "a man's soul of the dignity that comes from having a job and providing for one's self and family."

Mr. Obama, on the other hand, has been a platitude factory, spewing forth an assembly line of high-sounding, yet meaningless statements on hope, unity and "reigniting the America we were once so proud of."

Until Sunday.

Speaking at the 20,000-member Apostolic Church of God, Mr. Obama confronted directly the social upheaval caused by father-absent homes: "Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important," he sermonized. "If we are honest with ourselves, we'll admit that too many fathers also are missing, missing from too many lives and too many homes.

"They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men," he added. "We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception? what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child. It's the courage to raise one."

He then cited a litany of problems that arise when children grow up without a father's influence -- "five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison."

Speaking to a largely black audience, it would have been so easy for Mr. Obama to blame fatherlessness on others -- on racism by whites, on a lack of government spending or societal indifference. Yet he did not take the easy road. Reminding his audience that he was raised mostly without a father, he planted the blame squarely on individuals and communities.

We are certain many of the solutions Mr. Obama would entertain to cure the plague of fatherless homes are ones that involve state intervention and expensive programs -- policies we would be opposed to. Still, we can't quibble with his diagnosis.

Aside from the topic of sermon and Senator Obama's take on it (which I agree with), I was surprised to see in an editorial in The National Post, a Canadian daily with affirmed conservative leanings. In comparison, articles regarding Senator McCain have mostly read as response items to Senator Obama's speeches, or to offer up longshot ideas that might win him the election. Just seemed like a bit of a sign.

It was all fine and good until the part right after where he said the gov't would step in and do all these things for people. Taking "responsibility" does not mean doing the right thing and then expecting a gov't handout. But if you ignore where he ends up - the speech was fine.

which part are you talking about?

And by the way ? it?s a responsibility that also extends to Washington. Because if fathers are doing their part; if they?re taking our responsibilities seriously to be there for their children, and set high expectations for them, and instill in them a sense of excellence and empathy, then our government should meet them halfway.

We should be making it easier for fathers who make responsible choices and harder for those who avoid them. We should get rid of the financial penalties we impose on married couples right now, and start making sure that every dime of child support goes directly to helping children instead of some bureaucrat. We should reward fathers who pay that child support with job training and job opportunities and a larger Earned Income Tax Credit that can help them pay the bills. We should expand programs where registered nurses visit expectant and new mothers and help them learn how to care for themselves before the baby is born and what to do after ? programs that have helped increase father involvement, women?s employment, and children?s readiness for school. We should help these new families care for their children by expanding maternity and paternity leave, and we should guarantee every worker more paid sick leave so they can stay home to take care of their child without losing their income.

Why should fathers be "rewarded" for doing what they should be doing in the first place?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
It was all fine and good until the part right after where he said the gov't would step in and do all these things for people. [/b] Taking "responsibility" does not mean doing the right thing and then expecting a gov't handout. But if you ignore where he ends up - the speech was fine.

which part are you talking about?

I read it 2x and couldn't find that message either.

Find the transcript - not just the article which doesn't give the whole picture.

Transcript - http://www.realclearpolitics.c...ech_on_fatherhood.html

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

The rhetoric is nice, but what does Obama propose as a solution? To enslave men and force them to care for children they may never have wanted to have been born in the first place? I get the sense that he might be anti-men's rights. Perhaps he should blame fatherlessness on out-of-wedlock births and on women not being responsible enough to have abortions rather than birth children into poverty.

JHC how can you get 'anti mens rights' out of that speech?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Why should fathers be "rewarded" for doing what they should be doing in the first place?

What about men who never wanted to be fathers and who offered to pay for an abortion?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Why should fathers be "rewarded" for doing what they should be doing in the first place?

Thanks for the link to the transcript. I read it and I don't have a problem with his proposal. IMO the cost of these 'rewards' would be worth it if they reduce the things Obama mentioned (five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison).

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Why should fathers be "rewarded" for doing what they should be doing in the first place?

What about men who never wanted to be fathers and who offered to pay for an abortion?

Now I see where you're going and that's a touchy subject. I do think men get 'screwed' in that they don't really have much say in a pregnancy. If they want the kid and the woman doesn't too bad. If they don't want the kid and the woman does they're on the hook for 18 years.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Robor

JHC how can you get 'anti mens rights' out of that speech?

"They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men," he added. "We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception? what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child. It's the courage to raise one."

Based on what I read in that article, it almost sounded as though he was saying that he thinks men aren't doing their jobs and that real fatherhood should almost be a legal duty. Then he comes out and implies opposition to "choice for men"--paper abortions for men--which would essentially end responsibility at conception (providing that a man were willing to offer to pay for an abortion). Also, why does being a man mean having the "courage to raise" a child? What if man decides that it is in his rational selfish interest to not have anything to do with a child he never wanted and that he desperately wanted aborted? Is he somehow not a real man now in Obama's eyes?

I don't blame your or anyone else for failing to even contemplate all of that. It's very sad that we have almost no sense of men's issues in this country. It's completely inconceivable that men might have their own lives that they want to live and not want to serve women or children or society.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
The rhetoric is nice, but what does Obama propose as a solution? To enslave men and force them to care for children they may never have wanted to have been born in the first place?

What, a lot of men getting raped around where you live? Or do they not know sex sometimes leads to children?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Robor
Now I see where you're going and that's a touchy subject. I do think men get 'screwed' in that they don't really have much say in a pregnancy. If they want the kid and the woman doesn't too bad. If they don't want the kid and the woman does they're on the hook for 18 years.

Totally different subject. The way the law is now, they are to pay child support.

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Why should fathers be "rewarded" for doing what they should be doing in the first place?

Thanks for the link to the transcript. I read it and I don't have a problem with his proposal. IMO the cost of these 'rewards' would be worth it if they reduce the things Obama mentioned (five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison).

I don't understand the link there. So a guy who "fathers" a kid and doesn't pay is more likely to drop out or end up in prison? Or is it that a drop-outs and those who commit crimes are more likely to not pay for kids they "father"....

Me thinks the link is backwards...

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

:thumbsup: for Obama.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
The rhetoric is nice, but what does Obama propose as a solution? To enslave men and force them to care for children they may never have wanted to have been born in the first place?

What, a lot of men getting raped around where you live? Or do they not know sex sometimes leads to children?

Birth control is not 100% reliable and women's words that they're on the pill might not be reliable but abortion is pretty damned reliable, which means that it's ultimately a womans' decision whether or not a child is born and that thus it should be a woman's responsibility. (Her choice, her responsibility.) Furthermore, there are also real-world stories out there about men having their sperm stolen in various ways (she took the soiled condom from the garbage and tried to impregnate herself) and about fertilized embryos at cryogenic facilities being implanted against men's will, etc.

Oh, did I mention Paternity Fraud? That's when a woman claims that a man is the father when he really isn't? Many men have ended up having to pay child support for children that are not their own. In fact, courts have even ordered men who have been proven not to be biological fathers to continue paying child support for children who are not theirs. Some studies have even shown that perhaps as many as 30% of the children of married couples may not be the fathers (even though they think they are the real father).

(Note--we can solve the paternity fraud problem by requiring DNA tests for both the child, mother, and alleged father at birth.)

Wikipedia entry for Paternity Fraud:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_fraud

Also note that right now the law on paternal liability is strict liability. What happens when it becomes possible to grow a fetus using only a woman's egg and a man's DNA (from any cell)? Could you just imagine the hordes of women who would stalk and follow rich men (ie, daddy shopping) in the hopes of getting a DNA sample in some sort of a way...off a cigarette butt or glass, etc.?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Why should fathers be "rewarded" for doing what they should be doing in the first place?

Probably because for all the inspiring "Man up, boy! You're a father now!" speeches you can give one of these absentee fathers, you're not going to reach them. Trying something new and different - like tangible benefits awarded to the individual - might.

I find it a little repugnant myself and his wording could be better, but I'm also realistic. Idealism and/or the status quo isn't working.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Totally different subject. The way the law is now, they are to pay child support.

Oh, I don't deny that. I agree that men can be enslaved, and presumably Obama is in favor of that. My point was that they're not wanting to be fathers doesn't necessarily make them lesser men.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Why should fathers be "rewarded" for doing what they should be doing in the first place?

What about men who never wanted to be fathers and who offered to pay for an abortion?

It's kinda cause and effect type deal - ya know birds and the bees. Condoms, vasectomy, or abstinence are options for these men not wanting to be fathers. Why force the responsibility on the woman for his choices.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
The rhetoric is nice, but what does Obama propose as a solution? To enslave men and force them to care for children they may never have wanted to have been born in the first place?

What, a lot of men getting raped around where you live? Or do they not know sex sometimes leads to children?

Birth control is not 100% reliable and women's words that they're on the pill might not be reliable but abortion is pretty damned reliable, which means that it's ultimately a womans' decision whether or not a child is born and that thus it should be a woman's responsibility. (Her choice, her responsibility.) Furthermore, there are also real-world stories out there about men having their sperm stolen in various ways (she took the soiled condom from the garbage and tried to impregnate herself) and about fertilized embryos at cryogenic facilities being implanted against men's will, etc.

Oh, did I mention Paternity Fraud? That's when a woman claims that a man is the father when he really isn't? Many men have ended up having to pay child support for children that are not their own. In fact, courts have even ordered men who have been proven not to be biological fathers to continue paying child support for children who are not theirs. Some studies have even shown that perhaps as many as 30% of the children of married couples may not be the fathers (even though they think they are the real father).

(Note--we can solve the paternity fraud problem by requiring DNA tests for both the child, mother, and alleged father at birth.)

Wikipedia entry for Paternity Fraud:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_fraud

Also note that right now the law on paternal liability is strict liability. What happens when it becomes possible to grow a fetus using only a woman's egg and a man's DNA (from any cell)? Could you just imagine the hordes of women who would stalk and follow rich men (ie, daddy shopping) in the hopes of getting a DNA sample in some sort of a way...off a cigarette butt or glass, etc.?

Whiny men who want to play around but refuse to take responsibilty for any children who may result are contemptible. Get snipped if you don't want to pay child support. I have no sympathy for someone's failure to exercise personal responsibility.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Why should fathers be "rewarded" for doing what they should be doing in the first place?

What about men who never wanted to be fathers and who offered to pay for an abortion?

It can be the womens choice to have the child.

The man made the gamble when he unwrapped his tool.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Robor

JHC how can you get 'anti mens rights' out of that speech?

"They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men," he added. "We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception? what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child. It's the courage to raise one."

Based on what I read in that article, it almost sounded as though he was saying that he thinks men aren't doing their jobs and that real fatherhood should almost be a legal duty. Then he comes out and implies opposition to "choice for men"--paper abortions for men--which would essentially end responsibility at conception (providing that a man were willing to offer to pay for an abortion). Also, why does being a man mean having the "courage to raise" a child? What if man decides that it is in his rational selfish interest to not have anything to do with a child he never wanted and that he desperately wanted aborted? Is he somehow not a real man now in Obama's eyes?

I don't blame your or anyone else for failing to even contemplate all of that. It's very sad that we have almost no sense of men's issues in this country. It's completely inconceivable that men might have their own lives that they want to live and not want to serve women or children or society.

Yeah, I got your point in your follow up post and replied to it. It is true that men are pretty much screwed as far as rights go regarding a pregnancy. The woman has the final say on the outcome and right or wrong it's the law. As a guy the only way to protect yourself from an unwanted pregnancy is to not put your 'unit' into the 'baby maker' - and yes I realize and intend it to be taken more than one way.

FWIW, I think in this speech Obama is preaching *responsibility* and I agree with him. While there are always going to be some unplanned pregnancies resulting from failed contraceptives and cases of fraud the vast majority of 'accidents' could be avoided.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Guys, keep in mind that men don't really have a reliable form of birth control; condoms can break and they aren't nearly as reliable as biochemical methods (pills) or the IUD. I do agree that a smart guy would get a vasectomy, but sometimes it can be hard to find a urologist who will give a man a vasectomy if he's under 25 and if he's married the wife's permission might be required. (Makes no sense to me, but that might be the way it is.)

Also, I don't see why a whiney man who doesn't want to pay child support is any more contemptible than a whiney woman who doesn't want take responsibility for her choices and who then asks a man for child support.