Sometimes at ROK, we publish satirical pieces designed to direct attention to deeper issues. Leftists refer to them as troll pieces, but I think that just shows their own willful ignorance. We are not merely trying to gain attention to cure ourselves of boredom; we are trying to change the world. Many articles are tongue-in-cheek, and in fairness, sometimes that can be difficult for the reader to discern. Therefore, in the interest of clear communication, allow me to state that this article is not satirical, trolling, or a joke.
A woman who gives birth without a husband or live-in partner and chooses to raise the child is only acting in her own best interest. It is one thing if she gets divorced when her kids are a few years old. Since they’ve already begun to develop, one could argue that it’s best not to separate the child from the parent. But when your child is born, if you are an unwed mother, then the only morally defensible thing to do is to give the child up for adoption.
Dickensian orphanages no longer exist in America. The Catholic nun is a Hollywood myth from a former time. There is a huge surplus of financially stable but infertile couples who wait years to adopt a single child, and many of them are never able to. Mr. and Mrs. Smith can do a far better job raising your offspring that a daycare can. It’s an open secret how poorly-developed the American childcare industry is. If you want any hard evidence that women should seek to be housewives, read that article in the last sentence.
Unwed Mothers Are Unable To Mother
But what if the mother is financially well-off and can afford good childcare? After all, that article argues for higher quality daycare instead of gross reduction. Or what if she has a strong support system with her parents? Doesn’t matter. Maybe a boy or girl can develop well without a mother, but he or she will be damaged for life without a father constantly around. There are people who were raised without a father who did well for themselves, but this is in spite of their unnatural family structure and not because of it.
A boy needs a father to teach him to be a man, and a girl needs a father to make her feel protected. Everyone in society has a different definition of “a real man,” but notice how everyone still has a concept of it. You rarely hear people use the term “a real woman.” So does a girl need a mother to teach her to be a real woman if we have no concept of real womanhood? What does a mother offer to a girl that can’t be given by a man? The leftist reader is drawing a blank, because as soon as he answers that question, he will admit that there is an innate and hence obligatory gender role for women. How much more worthless is an unwed mother to a boy!
One could claim that a mother can provide a sense of protection and provision for both boys and girls, but again, that can much more naturally be provided by a father by virtue of his outer physiology. Small kids aren’t intelligent, and your high-paying job or MBA won’t impress them when the monsters under the bed try to attack them, to use a kindhearted example. They haven’t been socialized yet, and so they still have the animal mindset that might is right. So no, children cannot be properly mothered without the context of being fathered.
What about grandpa? Doesn’t he provide a father figure if the mother lives with her parents? It is still not the same, because he will be subject to the mother in every circumstance involving the child. Grandpa is ultimately employed as mommy’s nanny. The child still does not have a true father figure. If the mother wants to give up the child to be adopted by the grandparents, then wonderful. But under no circumstances in modern America should an unwed mother keep custody of her infant.
Be A Hero
Why then would an unwed mother keep custody of a newborn infant? Because she can’t imagine herself living without the child. My father made the same argument when he knocked up his mistress in an extramarital affair and decided to break up my family to marry her. The reader may scream that a parent is entitled to his child, but that only confirms the self-centeredness element. Who else is benefitted beside yourself? If you know that your infant will be far better off with another couple (especially if you are already in poverty), then why will you not do what is in the best interest of your child?
Furthermore, couples seeking to adopt are so desperate that they are often willing to negotiate an open adoption, meaning that you the biological parent can still interact with your child! You do not have to be completely out of the picture. Instead, you are making an adult decision about your incapacities. This way you can both be involved with your offspring and have the child develop into a functional human being. Everybody wins in an open adoption.
“But it’s still so difficult for a woman to give up custody!” screams the reader. Then be heroic. You want to be “an American hero”? You want to do something selfless and earn your good person membership card? Do what’s in the best interest of your child and send him or her to be with someone else. But do not use your infant as a security blanket. The love of such a woman is a selfish and cheap love. It is not love but at best mere deep affection.
“Women should be able to do what they want!” is the next argument. That just shows what an objectively terrible person you are. The difference between being a child and being an adult is the difference between choosing your wants and choosing your shoulds. And just so the on-the-fence reader doesn’t accuse me of misogyny, I’ll say that is true for both sexes.
People shame the modern man-child Peter Pan for good reason, but they never consider that what drives a 28-year-old man to live in his parents’ basement instead of enrolling in vocational school is the same thing that drives a career woman to pursue her dreams of cubicle serfdom and martini brunches. Both involve doing what they want, and the difference between those wants is only incidental.
One could argue that the child will naturally be better off with his biological parents than with adopted parents. Perhaps that is normally true, but the detriment caused to the child will be far worse with Jane Slut than with Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Actually, I’m willing to be fair and say that not all unwed pregnant women are sluts. Maybe your husband died in a car accident when you were eight-months pregnant. Still it doesn’t matter.
A generation ago, Chuck Palahniuk wrote in Fight Club, “We are a generation of men raised by women.” This feeling of loss causes the men in the book to drop out of society and pursue anarchy and nihilism. Although the actions are somewhat of an exaggeration, the sentiment of loss is much the ubiquitous state of the modern male, and this quote is as easily applicable a generation later. It’s ironic that early feminism fought for prohibition, since today it causes liquor sales to soar.
If my parents had not divorced, I never would have developed the emotional baggage that drives me to write, especially for a site like this. Read my work and try imagining it written by a happy, stable model citizen. This article is a product of a career mother and an androgynous father. They separated when I was six, and I can’t fathom how much more antisocial I would have become had they divorced during those crucially developmental first five years. So, feminists, if you don’t want your children to grow up to write for Return of Kings, then either stand by your man or release your infant to more qualified candidates.
Read More: American Children Are The Prisoners Of Women