BILL CLINTON, the liar and adulterer who has just one daughter and no sons (which means he produced no fathers), has been named Father of the Year by the National Father’s Day Council. Since Clinton is married to a woman who is committed to demonizing fathers around the globe and empowering mothers, he is an ideal father for our times. Let’s hope next year’s Father of the Year is a mother — or perhaps a man with no children. That’s only right.
— Comments —
Bruce B. writes:
This post suggests that it is important for men to have sons. I agree. We love our daughters very much (and, in fact, often favor them in many ways) but I don’t understand men who are indifferent to the fact that they have no sons. I have several male coworkers who, after having two daughters, have themselves neutered (excuse me, vasectomized). It doesn’t seem to bother them that they don’t have a son or that their patriline and surname will die.
Maybe some are glad they don’t have sons.
To raise a son, one must assert one’s own masculinity.
In a context where people have few children the case of having no son is quite frequent. I’ve been wondering for a long time if this situation does not lead some fathers to view feminism and female empowerment as a great thing. They have one, two or three daughters and they realise that in order to have a son they must have more babies. But they don’t want to sacrifice their lifestyle for a larger family. Hence, their daughters will be surrogate sons. Feminism allows them to live under such an illusion.
Yes, yes, yes. That is a common phenomenon.
Bill Clinton, father of the year? A lifetime professional politician with one grown daughter? Honestly, it just seems like parody, doesn’t it? Just once, I would love to see honored someone like the vast majority of good dads in this country: a guy who gets up every morning to go to a job he doesn’t really like all that much, to pay his family’s bills, who comes home tired, sore, and beaten down, kisses his children and wife, thanks her for dinner, holds the baby while his wife takes a walk, and at night gets down on his knees and prays for his family. He stays up late to wait for his teenagers to get home and disciplines them with love if they break curfew. This is a man who compliments his daughters for their goodness, kindness, sweetness and intelligence — a man who shows his sons how to fix the light switch, how to program software, or how to play an instrument. This is the man who chases trespassers away from his home in such a way that they are rightly afraid to come back. I’d like to see a photo of Father of the Year that showed a tired, slightly overweight, balding ordinary man wearing chinos and a button-down, who has spent his life for his family, whose daughters know the love of a good man enough to marry well themselves and whose sons are ready to take on the world with faith, strength, and masculine love.
The Father’s Day Council typically chooses celebrities for its annual awards. It’s a dumb organization.
Forta Leza writes:
I have only daughters. I really don’t care if my family name dies. For thousands of years, my ancestors did not use family names. They required to adopt family names by the Prussian empire which wanted to assimilate all of its subjects. A lot of those names were changed by immigration officials on Ellis Island. And again by my grandfathers who wanted to avoid discrimination; to show everyone that they were good Americans. Which is fine, but my name is not very central to my identity.
Of course I care very much that my people continue genetically, culturally, and religiously. This can be achieved just as easily by having daughters as well as sons. Daughters and sons should ideally be taught that there is value in their blood; in their culture; and in their religion. That it’s worth trying to keep those things alive. But a name? Compared to the other stuff, it’s just a flag of convenience.
I totally understand that some people want their family name to continue but for some people it’s not that big of a deal.
I can understand being indifferent to the name, though I don’t agree that it’s insignificant. But what Bruce mentioned — men who have two daughters and then have a vasectomy with no regret that they have no sons in addition to daughters — that’s entirely different.
Bruce B. writes:
I can understand Forta Leza’s point and I am not implying that there’s something wrong with men who are not concerned with literally passing their surname on. I think names are important to men because they symbolize one thing men traditionally find important and that is a connection with our patriline i.e. our fathers. I also think it is important to men that they have fellowship and shared experiences with sons in a way that is distinct from what we have with our daughters.
Lawrence Auster writes:
William Clinton performed heinous acts which, when they became public, his young daughter, in order to maintain her relationship with her father, had to accept those acts and turn off her mind and her moral sense and turn herself into a zombie. He did this to his daughter, and now he’s awarded as an Ideal Father.