Dr. Daniel Amneus wrote the Garbage Generation in the late 1980′s.
It was a seminal indictment of Matriarchy and about the long term, societal results of the feminist platform’s loosening of sexual mores and the institutions of no-fault divorce and family court system becoming normalized.
It’s now been two decades since he wrote about the inevitable results of instituting Matriarchy to replace Patriarchy. He predicted that the more Matriarchy became ascendant, the more America would resemble the matriarchal ghettos of the inner cities.
We’re almost there.
Four in ten babies are born outside marriage in the U.S.
The number of children born outside marriage in the United States has increased dramatically to four out of ten of all births.
Figures show that 41 per cent of children born in 2008 did not have married parents – up from 28 per cent in 1990.
Remember this the next time you encounter the “conservative” argument that is passionate about “saving marriage” from the gays.
Researchers have concluded that although Christian values still play an important role in American society, public attitudes have changed.
Hah. Most “Christian” values have changed to accommodate the public attitudes.
Having a child out of wedlock does not carry the stigma and shame it once did, they say.
Anybody remember the huge media brouhaha when VP Dan Quayle criticized the portrayal of single motherhood as no big deal on the TV show Murphy Brown? He was lambasted, ridiculed and had all sorts of insults directed at him.
Oh yes, Dan Quayle was absolutely right.
Let’s take a look at some substantial excerpts of the speech that contained the criticism of the TV show that got so many feminists and liberals panties twisted in a bunch…and put it into the overall context of the accurate points Quayle was making.
This country now has a black middle class that barely existed a quarter-century ago. Since 1967, the median income of black two-parent families has risen by 60 percent in real terms. The number of black college graduates has skyrocketed. Black men and women have achieved real political power — black mayors head 48 of our largest cities, including Los Angeles. These are achievements.
But as we all know, there is another side to that bright landscape. During this period of progress, we have also developed a culture of poverty — some call it an underclass — that is far more violent and harder to escape than it was a generation ago.
The poor you always have with you, Scripture tells us. And in America we have always had poor people. But in this dynamic, prosperous nation, poverty has traditionally been a stage through which people pass on their way to joining the great middle class. And if one generation didn’t get very far up the ladder — their ambitious, better-educated children would.
You can see the exact thing here in Hawaii. I’ve seen it play out amongst Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese, Samoan, Chinese and Micronesian families that migrate here. They often live in poverty-laden areas, with 10 family members living in a 2 or 3 bedroom apartment, with the parents working long hours at menial blue color jobs…saving money to put their kids through school. Within a generation, these families go from penniless immigrants to middle and upper-middle class citizenry, when their educated kids become doctors, lawyers, bankers or small business owners.
This, of course, is a stark contrast to all those families that come here and instead of working hard and saving to invest in their children’s future, they opt to go on the welfare, become dependent on hand outs and adopt the matriarchal ghetto lifestyle. I’ve seen families of all races take one or the other path, with reliably predictable results. The underclass really has nothing to do with race.
Nevertheless, the Black family in America leads the way in manifesting the societal results that occur when you adopt Government policies and laws that offer incentives for single mothers to have children out of wedlock. The black American family was the canary in the coalmine in terms of what happens when you effect social policies that impact the structure of the nuclear family.
As Dan Quayle noted:
The inter-generational poverty that troubles us so much today is predominantly a poverty of values. Our inner cities are filled with children having children; with people who have not been able to take advantage of educational opportunities; with people who are dependent on drugs or the narcotic of welfare. To be sure, many people in the ghettos struggle very hard against these tides — and sometimes win. But too many feel they have no hope and nothing to lose. This poverty is, again, fundamentally a poverty of values.
But the underclass seems to be a new phenomenon. It is a group whose members are dependent on welfare for very long stretches, and whose men are often drawn into lives of crime. There is far too little upward mobility, because the underclass is disconnected from the rules of American society. And these problems have, unfortunately, been particularly acute for black Americans.
Let me share with you a few statistics on the difference between black poverty in particular in the 1960s and now.
* In 1967, 68 percent of black families were headed by married couples. In 1991, only 48 percent of black families were headed by both a husband and wife.
* In 1965, the illegitimacy rate among black families was 28 percent. In 1989, 65 percent — two thirds — of all black children were born to never-married mothers.
* In 1951 9.2 percent of black youth between 16-19 were unemployed. In 1965, it was 23 percent. In 1980, it was 35 percent. By 1989, the number had declined slightly, but was still 32 percent.
* The leading cause of death of young black males today is homicide.
It would be overly simplistic to blame this social breakdown on the programs of the Great Society alone. It would be absolutely wrong to blame it on the growth and success most Americans enjoyed during the 1980s. Rather, we are in large measure reaping the whirlwind of decades of changes in social mores.
Of course, these changes in social mores didn’t “just happen.”
Unless we change the basic rules of society in our inner cities, we cannot expect anything else to change.
Indeed.
Instead of changing the basic rules of society in our inner cities, we’ve adopted them society-wide, which is precisely why we are now living through the decline of Western Civilization and entering into a Brave New World Order: Global Socialism Based on the Matriarchal family model; controlled and manipulated by dependence on the Ruling Elite.
For the government, transforming underclass culture means that our policies and programs must create a different incentive system. Our policies must be premised on, and must reinforce, values such as: family, hard work, integrity and personal responsibility.
But that would be racist, sexist and homophobic!
I think we can all agree that government’s first obligation is to maintain order. We are a nation of laws, not looting. If a single mother raising her children in the ghetto has to worry about drive-by shootings, drug deals, or whether her children will join gangs and die violently, her difficult tasks becomes impossible.
Safety is absolutely necessary. But it’s not sufficient. Our urban strategy is to empower the poor by giving them control over their lives. Empowering the poor will strengthen families. And right now, the failure of our families is hurting America deeply. When families fail, society fails. The anarchy and lack of structure in our inner cities are testament to how quickly civilization falls apart when the family foundation cracks. Children need love and discipline. They need mothers and fathers. A welfare check is not a husband. The state is not a father. It is from parents that children learn how to behave in society; it is from parents above all that children come to understand values and themselves as men and women, mothers and fathers.
And for those concerned about children growing up in poverty, we should know this: Marriage is probably the best anti-poverty program of all. Among families headed by married couples today, there is a poverty rate of 5.7 percent. But 33.4 percent of families headed by a single mother are in poverty today.
The system perpetuates itself as these young men father children whom they have no intention of caring for, by women whose welfare checks support them. Teenage girls, mired in the same hopelessness, lack sufficient motive to say no to this trap.
That Dan Quayle sure was a stupid, moron, wasn’t he?
Answers to our problems won’t be easy.
We can start by dismantling a welfare system that encourages dependency and subsidizes broken families. We can attach conditions — such as school attendance, or work — to welfare. We can limit the time a recipient gets benefits. We can stop penalizing marriage for welfare mothers. We can enforce child support payments.
Heh. I wrote too soon…note the inherent contradiction in that last paragraph. He first calls for dismantling the welfare system…than immediately makes proscriptions that reform the welfare system, not dismantle it. And in fact, all of those conditions he mentioned were eventually effected with “Welfare Reform” during the Clinton administration. The Daily Mail article now shows us just how effective that was. American bastardy is at an all time high.
They should have ended it, not “mended” it.
This is what happens when you get “compromise” by “conservatives” so they can appeal to the “left” to achieve “bi-partisan consensus.”
Ultimately, however, marriage is a moral issue that requires cultural consensus and social sanctions. Bearing babies irresponsibly is, simply, wrong. We must be unequivocal about this.
Too late, Mr. Quayle. They reformed welfare and normalized babies born out of wedlock. The Matriarchal paradigm continues it’s ascent.
It doesn’t help matters when primetime TV has Murphy Brown — a character who supposedly epitomizes today’s intelligent, highly paid, professional woman — mocking the importance of fathers, by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another “lifestyle choice.”
I know it is not fashionable to talk about moral values, but we need to do it. Even though our cultural leaders in Hollywood, network TV, the national newspapers routinely jeer at them, I think that most of us in this room know that some things are good,and other things are wrong. Now it’s time to make the discussion public.
Our cultural “leaders” in Hollywood, network TV and the national newspapers have won that particular debate.
Sounds to me like Quayle was well versed in Senator Moynihan’s report about the destructive effects of Matriarchal policies and programs on the black American family.
No wonder the liberal mainstream media, talking heads and late night comedians had to continually push the meme that Quayle was barely above the intellectual level of retardation because of his dispute with a grade schooler on the spelling of the word potato(e).
Dan Quayle was right, and he certainly was no dumbass when he made the argument that Murphy Brown’s single mother storyline was in fact a glorification of single motherhood, a marginalization of the role of Fathers, and that it would subversively influence the viewers by normalizing bastardy in our culture.
Can anyone now say it with a straight face that Dan Quayle’s predictions didn’t come true?
