< PREVIOUS ]   [ 1987 Index ]   [ Ed Quillen HOME ]   [ SEARCH ]   [ NEXT >


The word 'family' needs some work

Published 10-Jul-1987 in the Denver Post
Copyright ©1987 by Ed Quillen. All rights reserved.

Even Ben Wattenberg has finally found something that worries him. The pop economist once found cheer amid the gloom; remember The Good News is that the Bad News is Wrong?

Now, however, he is promoting a new book, The Birth Dearth. He says we face a big problem. Americans aren't building babies as fast as we once did. If this trend continues, we'll run out of fast-food clerks, expendable soldiers and, most important, customers for the products of American industry.

Clearly, this is a threat to our cherished way of life. So how do we encourage more people to have bigger families?

We could start by eliminating the negative connotations of the word family. As it is, family is a synonym for cheap and tasteless, as with restaurants that promote family fare. Or it means boring and preachy, as in a movie for family audiences. It sounds ominous and sinister when you mention the Five Families of New York.

Even when you're talking about the normal notion of family, families have acquired an evil reputation. Always you see articles which announce Study demonstrates that day-care centers are vastly better places for children than homes and neighborhoods. Families, judging by what you read, are no more than places for children to be abused and neglected.

The mother-of-the-year and the father-of-the-year are never normal people who merely tend to their own children, doing as best as they can. They're always people with dynamic careers and extensive involvement in community activities -- in short, people too busy to spend time with their own children. And that is what we honor in this country as exemplars of parenthood.

Along the way, we could make the pro-family political forces adopt another name.

I like families. I have one, I came from one, I think families are wonderful and important.

But I'm not about to say I'm pro-family when being pro-family means that you're a lobotomy victim anxiously awaiting Oral Roberts' resurrection or that you're a zealous participant in the jihad against teaching science and literature in schools.

We also need to remove the social stigma attached to women who stay home and raise families. Since no paycheck is attached to that activity, there is a widespread myth that what they do isn't important.

A woman who devotes herself to a career allows some faceless corporation to tell her how to dress, when to get up in the morning, how to sit at her desk, when to eat lunch, etc. But when she condescends to talk to a stay-at-home mother, she somehow manages to argue that she is liberated and the mother, who controls a great deal more of her own life, is oppressed.

Or worse than oppressed. Some years ago, when Martha was staying home with two toddlers, she was also reading voraciously through the classics, rounding out her education. We went to a party one night, whereat a hard-core careerist launched a tirade, concluding with the observation that It's a proven scientific fact that you lose 10 I.Q. points for every year that you stay home with small children.

I see, Martha replied. You mean if I stay home another seven or eight years, I'll finally fall to your level?

So you're stupid and oppressed and abusive if you devote any attention to raising children when you ought to be trading up to a better BMW while polishing your résumé.

There's another way that you're a fourth-class citizen if you have a family. A landlord cannot discriminate against black people or brown people, or against Jews or Roman Catholics, or, in many cities, homosexuals. That's as it should be. Racial or religious or sexual discrimination is wrong.

But it's perfectly legal and acceptable to discriminate against families. Just look through the classified ads this morning and see how many apartments and rental houses specify No children. That's blatant discrimination, and nobody cares. There aren't any protest marches or demands for fairness.

It's easy to see why people aren't bothering with families these days. And if Wattenberg is right, we'll deserve the dismal future that awaits us.


< PREVIOUS ]   [ 1987 Index ]   [ Ed Quillen HOME ]   [ SEARCH ]   [ NEXT >