Blogging has / will be light this week because I'm on holiday but via Liberal Conspiracy and Tom Freeman I have to comment on the latest awful diatribe by Melanie Phillips.
It was prompted by proposed legislation in the human fertilisation and embryology bill that recognises same-sex couples as legal parents, and remove the necessity for IVF clinics to consider the need for a father when taking into account the unborn child's welfare. Melanie has joined the likes of Iain Duncan Smith and Cardinal Cormac Murpy-O'Connor with the usual accusations about 'undermining the traditional family' or the 'abolition of fatherhood'. In truth it's little more than the sort of poorly disguised homophobia dressed up as cultural analysis that too many right-wing bloggers still tolerate and it's continued existence / prominence explains the doubts that still linger among the public about the depth of Cameron's efforts to reform the Tories.
As is often the case with poor arguments they hitch their wagon to indisputable facts and just hope you'll ignore the flawed logic that follows. In general terms children from 'traditional two-parent' families do fare better on almost every indicator - I'm not aware of anyone that's asserting otherwise. But the idea that this fact is somehow undermined by simple recognition that not every child's life is like that is utter nonsense. What about the other things equally beneficial to child-rearing that some children will have and others won't - at least one parent in stable employment, access to first-class nursery education (and beyond), adequate social housing etc? Why is it when policy discussion turns to these themes the right's enthusiasm for the ideal family environment is suddenly dimmed? There may be recognition about the importance of these things but their provision or otherwise suddenly becomes a far less pressing issue.
The essence of Phillips argument (as well as the support from O'Connor / Smith etc.) is actually brutally straight-forward - stable heterosexual marriage is the best environment to bring up children so the state should have no truck with making the alternatives easier. The first part of that proposition is just a fact but the second part is heartless nonsense since these alternatives always have and always will be needed anyway - sensible government means framing them in the best interests of the children and making them as easy as possible.
I do have some sympathy with the underlying drift of thought from the likes of Phillips here - of course society has changed dramatically over the last 50 years and it would be churlish to deny that some of the things advanced under the guise of progressive politics have had unfortunate (as well as fortunate effects). For example it may well be true that if society had maintained its mean, judgemental attitude to single parents (championed by the Tories in the 80's of course) there might be fewer today and consequently less of the attendant social problems. Likewise with shifting attitudes to divorce, sex-before-marriage, domestic violence etc. But that's to miss the point on a grand scale. The social response to these things is only one aspect of them and the idea that we should somehow try to calibrate it such that we control the incidence of them is nonsense. Yes there may be some unfortunate side effects but we shouldn't forget the sheer inhumanity with which many of these phenomenon were greeted in the past - ignoring the blunt truth that these things are simply facts of life, the implication from the likes Phillips is that we should be a little less humane, a little more judgemental and perhaps we'll reap some social reward. She couldn't be more wrong.
It was prompted by proposed legislation in the human fertilisation and embryology bill that recognises same-sex couples as legal parents, and remove the necessity for IVF clinics to consider the need for a father when taking into account the unborn child's welfare. Melanie has joined the likes of Iain Duncan Smith and Cardinal Cormac Murpy-O'Connor with the usual accusations about 'undermining the traditional family' or the 'abolition of fatherhood'. In truth it's little more than the sort of poorly disguised homophobia dressed up as cultural analysis that too many right-wing bloggers still tolerate and it's continued existence / prominence explains the doubts that still linger among the public about the depth of Cameron's efforts to reform the Tories.
As is often the case with poor arguments they hitch their wagon to indisputable facts and just hope you'll ignore the flawed logic that follows. In general terms children from 'traditional two-parent' families do fare better on almost every indicator - I'm not aware of anyone that's asserting otherwise. But the idea that this fact is somehow undermined by simple recognition that not every child's life is like that is utter nonsense. What about the other things equally beneficial to child-rearing that some children will have and others won't - at least one parent in stable employment, access to first-class nursery education (and beyond), adequate social housing etc? Why is it when policy discussion turns to these themes the right's enthusiasm for the ideal family environment is suddenly dimmed? There may be recognition about the importance of these things but their provision or otherwise suddenly becomes a far less pressing issue.
The essence of Phillips argument (as well as the support from O'Connor / Smith etc.) is actually brutally straight-forward - stable heterosexual marriage is the best environment to bring up children so the state should have no truck with making the alternatives easier. The first part of that proposition is just a fact but the second part is heartless nonsense since these alternatives always have and always will be needed anyway - sensible government means framing them in the best interests of the children and making them as easy as possible.
I do have some sympathy with the underlying drift of thought from the likes of Phillips here - of course society has changed dramatically over the last 50 years and it would be churlish to deny that some of the things advanced under the guise of progressive politics have had unfortunate (as well as fortunate effects). For example it may well be true that if society had maintained its mean, judgemental attitude to single parents (championed by the Tories in the 80's of course) there might be fewer today and consequently less of the attendant social problems. Likewise with shifting attitudes to divorce, sex-before-marriage, domestic violence etc. But that's to miss the point on a grand scale. The social response to these things is only one aspect of them and the idea that we should somehow try to calibrate it such that we control the incidence of them is nonsense. Yes there may be some unfortunate side effects but we shouldn't forget the sheer inhumanity with which many of these phenomenon were greeted in the past - ignoring the blunt truth that these things are simply facts of life, the implication from the likes Phillips is that we should be a little less humane, a little more judgemental and perhaps we'll reap some social reward. She couldn't be more wrong.
Labels: Politics
9 Comments:
Melanie is right on ths occasion and this post, unusual for you, Liam, seriously flawed.
Perhaps you could explain why James..?
Well I cannot get awfully excited about this particular unpleasant turn of the ratchet because the damnage is already done before you expell the father entirely from the record.I do rather pity children in the two mummy position. Worse things happen no doubt but I notice a rabid homophobia provoked by this imposition of decadent Liberalism through schools and the BBC.
Your starting point is wrong . The government actively discourages marriage and encourages single motherhood. This is damaging socially and in particular to children. That other things may or may not be is irrelevant and , if I may say so , a sloppy argument
I think it may be difficult for some one as middleclass as you are C to understand the importance of the stable family and the cultural damage done by undermining it. Whilst benefits and housing policy are the main culprits the progressive supposition that whatever may pop out of a test tube of the possible is as good as what works and continues to work is rather arrogant as well.
In a broad sense I would not accept that there is any special humanity about not making judgements, which you call judgemental either and judging the irresponsible behaviour of others when it will affect children and society is a duty( which I relish :))
I am also not at all sure that what you clearly regard as Progress is not actually just change which may well change back. Your prescription seem to be that the state continues to impose its preference for non conventional families financed by the tax payer and supported culturally by the middleclass Liberals in an entirely different context , as a "Life style choice".
How important is this signal about the irrelevance of the father ? perhaps not very but in the estates where fathers are absent the immense damage done by the ignorant elitist presumption of "Progressivism " is entirely obvious.
Clearly the response must be to support marriage as far as possible and certainly remove state obstacles. If a few denizens of bohemia wish to live in families of four women and a goat then I doubt it hurts but I couldn`t care less about them and their minority predilections .
I care far more about a group like say Black Londoners that generation of family undermining policies have reduced to illiteracy violence and despair. Conservatives have a message for these people . Family , responsibility , stable community and reward for work are the themes and in its small way this is a move in the wrong direction
Wash your mouth out with blue soapy water C . Would you object to a chiold being grown for a group of four women say in a commune ? I `m just curious how far you stretch your tolerance of the non conventional ..
Melanie Phillips is awful. Her writing is melodramatic, she harks back to golden ages that do not exist and sees conspiracies in everything. She is also one of those people who never ever seems to smile.
Newmania summed it up, Liam, esp the first three paragraphs. The assault on the family is reaching epic proportions now, the aim to legitimize that which is not sustainable in nature and thereby to tear asunder that which is difficult - i.e. normal relations.
Gay is fine between consenting adults but when it comes down to children and a system of social relations, that's another thing altogether.
Sorry James but you're making the same mistake as Newmania - the very language you, NM & Melanie Phillips use when discussing this is deliberately vague and imprecise, probably to disguise some rather base and ugly prejudices.
I'm a father - how is my role 'undermined' by Lesbian's being able to register their birth without a father's name? It simply doesn't make any sense and 'undermining fatherhood' is the sort of phrase Orwell would've ridiculed - it means nothing and implies all sorts of nasty judgemental behaviours.
If you wish to reduce language to algebra then will be equally ill-equipped to use it as those who are imprecise. It has association as well as direct correspondence and in this case the associations are the point .
Societies operate by norms if they are not to rely on coercion and this shift of the norm is not one of which I approve.
I think you're missing my point again NM - those norms are always in flux and you can no more 'disapprove' of a shift in the norm than you can the weather - at best it's pointless grandstanding, at worse ugly bigotry.
you can no more 'disapprove' of a shift in the norm than you can the weather
Rubbish; disapproval or the lack of it is exactly what makes "Norms ". You seem to think a drift the "progressive "direction" is the march of time. How quaint.
Best Wishes
K Canute
XX
How quaintly
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home