The New York Times recently ran a seemingly endless and positively glowing story in its Sunday Magazine celebrating single-motherhood.
The title — “2 Kids + 0 Husbands = Family” — says it all. The Times considers husbands and fathers incidental and altogether disposable. In reality, families with “0 husbands” equals social strychnine.
The Times’ editorial staff just can’t get it through their hard-as-titanium liberal craniums that children need fathers (married to mothers) in the home — not sperm donors, not men whose connection to them ended at the moment of conception, not a parade of boyfriends called “Uncle Fred,” but fathers committed to raising their children.
Boys learn to become men — and in turn fathers — by watching their own fathers. Girls learn what to look for in a husband by watching the interplay of a loving husband and wife.
In her new book, Guilty: Liberal ‘Victims’ And Their Assault On America, Ann Coulter offers a grim assessment of the consequences of women having children solo. Coulter discloses, “70% of teenage births, dropouts, suicides, runaways, juvenile delinquents and child murderers involve children raised by single mothers.”
America’s most trenchant social critic also notes that female-headed households account for 85% of homeless families and 90% of families on welfare.
Citing the Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, Coulter reveals that children from single-parent families represent “63% of youth suicides, 70% of teenaged pregnancies, 71% of adolescent substance abuse, 80% of prison inmates and 90% of homeless and runaway children.”
Why have the number of births to unwed women soared from around 5% in 1960 to almost 40% today?
Welfare policies played a part. So too did a cultural elite (led by the howling hyenas at The New York Times) removing the stigma of fornication and out-of-wedlock births, telling society that the only function husbands/fathers serve is providing a paycheck, and lionizing the single mom.
In a way, The Times is celebrating its own handiwork.