or why maybe Dan Quayle had a point
It's kind of a basic tenet of modern-day social liberalism that everybody has the freedom and right to make their own lifestyle choices. OK, this is true as far as it goes but it's also not true that people's lifestyle choices never impinge on others. Out-of-wedlock births, now let me be very specific here. I'm talking about a social trend I've picked up on beginning many years ago, not the woman who finds herself in the dilemma of an unplanned pregnancy but those young women who either plan it or else expect that it can happen and so no big deal being a single mom. The situation I've narrowed down here because I need to be careful as a pro-life advocate but I have heard of this Murphy Brown-type lifestyle choice if you will and seen it firsthand. I worked with one young woman many years ago who had two kids this way, pretty much planned the whole thing or else didn't really care about taking the proper precautions to the point where she didn't care that it happened (the two are somewhat interchangeable in my mind) and so this woman got offended when someone suggested she marry her boyfriend of longstanding: "I'm not going to let society dictate my life." So here's where the imposition of one's lifestyle choice has an effect, right there in the workplace. They call out sick a lot, come in late a lot and generally throw a wrench into the whole workday because everything revolves around their own personal schedule which in turn is dictated by finding a babysitter and other social issues relevant to them, their agenda. So the other workers tend to get annoyed and resentful over time, there's no real search or need for a man in her life (modern-day feminism, who needs a man?) and so while the gay man can come to work everyday and really pump it out (poor choice of words, lol) some lifestyle choices pose a bigger burden on others. OK, I'm sure I've offended someone out there.
The co-worker was out of line in suggesting that she marry her boyfriend of longstanding.
ReplyDeleteI would hope however that the gal would still make a concious effort to see to it that the boyfriend is playing an active role in the child's life. If that is not likely to happen then the woman should look to her own father or another male figure to figure in the child's life.
As for the marriage aspect of it, the fact of the matter is that a child doesn't have the cognitive ability to recognize marriage.
People comment to me quite often about the possibility that I'll marry when I have kids. Frankly, I don't see why that's significant.
What the child will need is a male and female influence in their life. It's not going to make a squirt of difference if I'm his/her mother's "legal" husband.
It may have been out of line but here's the standard I'm using here involving lifestyle choices:
ReplyDeleteIf your lifestyle choice poses a burden on me in some way we have a problem.
Put simply make some arrangements whereby you don't impinge on your fellow workers and so I'm focusing on the workplace here. I think as a pragmatic issue it makes sense if you purposely want kids to get married first. A woman at work asked me once "so when are you gonna have a kid?" this in the context of a couple of other young men there who sired kids out of wedlock like what am I supposed to get a woman pregnant? so I think we can make judgements on pragmatics and mind you I'm not even talking moral judgements here.
Mind you these young single Moms who say call out sick a lot and so someone else is always asked to work late, don't they have a life too? and so if I may use a very imperfect analogy here if I decide to smoke do I then have the right to blow second-hand smoke in someone else's face? Again I'm not even talking morality here per se just how annoying to their fellow co-workers some of these women are and THAT all goes back to my main premise: just because something is a lifestyle choice doesn't mean it doesn't sometimes impose an unfair burden on others (kiddies pay no attention to my use of double negatives, it may not be grammatical but it's my blog).
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree, women want equal rights but then these single mothers expect extra rights because of their circumstance. And mind you, if a woman was widowed and that is why she is a single mom, or divorced an abusive man (men can also find themselves single dads too of course) then this is different, but I think purposely becoming a single parent then you may need more time off but then you've got to make concessions on other things.
ReplyDeleteSoapie might agree with the following sentiment. Just because you procreate does that make your life more important or significant than mine let's say? Applying this to the workplace someone might tell you or it's understood that her life, her situation as a single mom is more important than yours so bite the bullet and stay overtime, maybe you're just going out with your friend later to Barnes & Noble. This is why I make the case for marriage in these cases, it ain't the burden of the young mother working two jobs to support herself AND her kid, sometimes morality just makes practical sense too.
ReplyDelete& here's another thing Beth. We live in the age of you can't discriminate but let's say I'm the boss of my own private little company (non-unionized of course) and a woman applies for the job and just coincidentally or someone tells me or she tells me herself I happen to know about her personal sitation as a single mom. Now this particular workplace requires some real hardwork and man, I mean personpower, punctuality and very few sickouts are a MUST, if I don't then hire that young woman can I be taken to court for discrimination even though I know what kind of workplace burdens it'll place on me and the rest of my staff? (then again she needs to pay her bills too)
ReplyDelete"Soapie might agree with the following sentiment. Just because you procreate does that make your life more important or significant than mine let's say? Applying this to the workplace someone might tell you or it's understood that her life, her situation as a single mom is more important than yours so bite the bullet and stay overtime, maybe you're just going out with your friend later to Barnes & Noble. This is why I make the case for marriage in these cases, it ain't the burden of the young mother working two jobs to support herself AND her kid, sometimes morality just makes practical sense too."
ReplyDeleteSoapie agrees that it is not. But, on the second point, it is not the necessity of "marriage" which lifts the burden in those cases Z. It is an issue of parental responsibility (marriage or not).
God love 'em [those that take on the task of parenting] but don't for a minute annoint yourselves to some holier than thou status. Virtually anyone can have one but not everyone can properly raise one.
"& here's another thing Beth. We live in the age of you can't discriminate but let's say I'm the boss of my own private little company (non-unionized of course) and a woman applies for the job and just coincidentally or someone tells me or she tells me herself I happen to know about her personal sitation as a single mom. Now this particular workplace requires some real hardwork and man, I mean personpower, punctuality and very few sickouts are a MUST, if I don't then hire that young woman can I be taken to court for discrimination even though I know what kind of workplace burdens it'll place on me and the rest of my staff? (then again she needs to pay her bills too)"
ReplyDeleteThis is almost exclusively why Barry Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
I guess that's why I've always had an afinity for the former Senator.
You said something key before soapie, that there needs to be a male presence in these kids' lives. Like the one guy I know who has a kid this way, at least he's involved in the kid's life and ain't hiding somewhere like so many men who plant their seeds and when the crop comes due ain't nowhere within a 50 mile radius. Social conservatives would say marriage codifies all this now it's Beth's turn.
ReplyDelete"Social conservatives would say marriage codifies all this..."
ReplyDeleteAnd they would be wrong. The institution of marriage doesn't bequeath male involvement in a child's life. Why my very own upbringing can attest to that. My father was always working and rarely around. But I suppose if the social conservatives want to promote the irrationality of such a claim then let them take their lickings from their adversaries as they come.
Getting back to the woman at work who kept having kids but wouldn't marry her boyfriend, while I sympathize with the sentiment "I'm not going to let society dictate my life" sometimes society may have a point. She admitted to actually planning the pregnancies so once someone reaches this stage in their thinking I lean on over to society's side and this was Dan Quayle's whole point in the beginning. More lifestyle choices to come in my next post, lol.
ReplyDeleteUsed to go fishing with a guy, we'd go in my rowboat on the reservoir and he was a real pothead, a doobie aficionado always with the roach clip or rolling paper. Anyway I made it known to him on at least two occasions don't do that in the boat, although he never offered me any I didn't want to breathe that wonderful stale urine aroma in but he did it anyway. I never even preached about it just give me this one little civil accomodation so that's someone's lifestyle choice being imposed on me. Then I heard a true story, seems some guy checked into a local hospital with a dildo rammed up his ass. Hey, now whatever floats your boat but pity that poor hospital staff who had to get it out, wasn't their lifestyle choice. Is it just me or are other people's lifestyle choices somehow making their way into our daily lives? I kinda resent it to be honest with you.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of Murphy Brown, been wondering...who is the father of Jody Foster's child? None of my business of course, just curious.
ReplyDeleteLike your title says that we all make lifestyle choices, and part of having the freedoms we have to make choices is to also take responsibility for our choices. This is where I think your gripe lies, Z-man, that some people put themselves in a difficult situation purposely and then cannot handle the responsibility, and just as in any situation where people aren't responsible, someone else ends up paying.
ReplyDeleteI often think of mountain climbing which is a stupid sport imo, they get stuck up there and have to get rescued. I like what Seinfeld said about camping: "I have a bed so why would I sleep in the woods?"
ReplyDeleteSeinfeld logic is usually pretty sound, lol.
ReplyDeleteNow anyone can find themselves in need of help, but some put themselves in a position where they are more likely to need it.
there ya go
ReplyDeleteIt's like when we're told as taxpayers that we have to pay for some poor woman's abortion, some woman who can't keep her legs closed, the Holland Tunnel. My point is once we reach this point of subsidizing abortions then that reaches my threshold of your lifestyle choice is starting to impose a heavy burden on me Mr. Working American. The choicers will say she has the need and the right to have her abortion but I say let them figure it out, come up with their version of a solution and leave me out of it. The fascism of choice.
ReplyDeleteAnd why FOCA is so so wrong!
ReplyDeleteIt's not really about choice Beth and never was. Bloomberg in NYC wants to force young doctors to learn abortions. Ya know why? if God forbid there were no more abortionists they want to make sure women can still have 'em. The purely libertarian position would say if market forces determine that nobody wants to do 'em that's fair and square, the lifers have won the battle for public opinion. This is why I refer to the fascism of choice. IMO there's more than a few psychos in the pro-choice movement, it's way off-center and yet they call themselves the mainstream like poster A Shaw, a member of the Pro-Choice Action Network recently said here that the two sides need to work out a common ground. What common ground? when you even mention informed-consent they bristle. His/hers was an effort to soften our side up and get us talking on their terms no doubt. No dice and if you can't already tell I'm in a brusque mood today, all this bullshit you have to wade through you have to wear hip-waders.
ReplyDelete