July 16, 2012

NYT article hurts lady writer's feelings

From Slate:
New York Times, Stop Moralizing About Single Mothers 
No, their households are not always sad and falling apart. 

Yes, but, as sportswriter Damon Runyon said, "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet."
By Katie Roiphe

It is disheartening to see that the New York Times has run yet another puritanical and alarmist rumination on the decline of the American family disguised as a straight-news story. The piece, in tender, gloomy detail, compares the slatternly home of the single mother, all struggle and chaos, to the orderly, promising, more affluent home of her boss, who is married. The moralizing portrait that emerges is not surprising: The single mother and her children have a terrible life, and the married mother and her children have a great one. 
One of the most laughable elements of the story is that it hinges on the idea that the single mother’s children are suffering because of a lack of extracurricular activities: It lingers on the idea that the swimming class, and Boy Scouts meetings, and trips to Disney that the children of the single mother are deprived of will somehow turn them into dropouts and teenage parents. But surely, after Cheever and Updike and The Lonely Crowd, we have moved on from the facile ’50s, Norman Rockwell fantasy that camping badges can save our children from pain? Who knew that fraternizing with life sized Ariels and Cinderellas was so important, so pressing, in raising your children to be healthy, upstanding citizens? And what is so shocking to the reporter about the terribly deprived, endangered Steavon, the son of the single mother, is that he has to choose one extracurricular, and this year chose football, rather than getting to do karate and swimming and Boy Scouts. 
What makes this particular bourgeois focus especially ironic is that it occurs alongside a contemporaneous cultural discussion of whether college-educated parents are spoiling their children, or over hovering. Apparently there is a very fine line between giving your children enough swimming lessons and too many swimming lessons.

Considering the rate at which African-American boys (such as this white single mother in the NYT's three sons) drown in motel pools, giving your kids enough swimming lessons is important. You can also, no doubt, give them too many. The notion that the good life is typically found somewhere between too little and too much may be too complicated a concept for Ms. Roiphe, but guys like Aristotle and Confucius found it sensible.
The innate self-congratulation of the Times piece, the smug sense that the average college-educated New York Times reader is enriching their children, insuring their mental health, while the sluttish, struggling, single mother is ruining theirs is— whatever the truth of the situation, which I humbly suggest is more complicated than that—extremely repellent. In the guise of writing a well-intentioned liberal piece—oh the poor single mothers! And their poor children!—the New York Times is recycling truly retrograde and ugly moral judgements.The idea that this unconventional, struggling household might sometimes be fine is so astonishing that the piece reports as news that the single mother, Jessica Schairer, sometimes records “happy moments on her Facebook page.” 

The contemporary mind, as illustrated by Ms. Roiphe's, has fundamental problems grasping useful concepts like "on average" and "tends to."
The demographic changes that are alarming the editors of the New York Times are unquestionable: In the middle class the family is breaking down, there is a steep rise in single mother households and women supporting their families, but the judgmental tone is outdated and wrong. The anxious need to assert that the traditional two-parent family is better has outlived its usefulness. It’s time to run a story about the resourcefulness, energy, and intensity of these homes, a fair, open-minded exploration of these new family structures and the independent, tough women who run them, not yet another unimaginative comparison with a family whose dad takes his son to Boy Scouts.

You go, girl!

Shouldn't Roiphe use the word "empower" somewhere?
Moving into the future, the college-educated, traditional families will need to understand that, though of course it is easier to have money, money is not the only thing that matters in raising children well (nor are vacations or swimming lessons). They will also have to understand that they do not have a monopoly on joy or healthy environments or thriving children.

But that's the way to bet.

80 comments:

IHTG said...

Hahahaha, that's pathetic.

Whiskey said...

As Roissy, Heartiste point out, "five minutes of Alpha beats five years of beta." Most women, most of the time, will trade hot sex and Alpha males who don't commit for a lifetime of beta male boringness, even if the outcomes are better for their offspring. Indeed the subtext of the argument is that sons and daughters of the sexy dominant Alpha who cads around siring lots of kids will inherit the genes for sexy dominance and thus for the sons at least be that dangerous, thuggish a-hole all women love and desire.

Since it is a female culture (courtesy of consumer marketing) this you go girl! sentiment rules. I'm shocked the NYT even printed the original article and predict a groveling apology.

Anonymous said...

"The innate self-congratulation of the Times piece, the smug sense that the average college-educated New York Times reader is enriching their children, insuring their mental health, while the sluttish, struggling, single mother is ruining theirs is— whatever the truth of the situation, which I humbly suggest is more complicated than that—extremely repellent. In the guise of writing a well-intentioned liberal piece—oh the poor single mothers! And their poor children!—the New York Times is recycling truly retrograde and ugly moral judgements"

I agree with this assessment. If you check out the photo slide show at the top of the NYT piece, it's like a fucking Goofus and Gallant cartoon. "poor kid's mom doesn't have $2. to waste for a bagel for snack and expects him to pack some pretzels" Oh the horrors! And here's rich kid sitting in the cockpit of a real glider that he will get to fly as his proud, supportive dad looks on! Poor kid only gets to choose one extracurricular activity, so he chose football. Rich, 2-parent kid packs for baseball camp while his dad does the laundry.

eah said...

If she thinks it's OK for a kid to have just a mother then I'm probably not going out on a limb guessing she would also think it even OKer for a kid to have two mothers. But I'm having trouble deciding if such a home would be half as or double so "slatternly".

Anonymous said...

There is no such single entity as 'single mother'. Just as political prisoners and criminal prisoners are different, affluent educated women who CHOOSE to be single mothers after careful consideration(and plenty of means)are different from uneducated single mothers who are really just skankass ho's who happened to drop babies out of their pooter like they take crap out of their asses.

For some educated and affluent women, single mothering is a calculated decision; or it's just the result of divorce or death of spouse.
For the skankass ho's, it's an 'accident' cuz they just too dumb and irresponsible to keep their pooters shut.

Similarly, not all college dropouts are the same. I mean Bill Gates and some slacker bum don't belong in the same crowd simply because both dropped out. Bill Gates left college cuz he had bigger ideas. Some leave college cuz they care more for smoking weed and partying than doing study.

So, we should make distinctions between the kinds of single mothering:

There is independent single-mothering by educated and successful women who can pay their own way and who carefully made their own decision.
And there is dependent single-mothering where some idiot skankass ho just couldn't hep herself from getting pregnant and be depending on welfare and/or be working at low wage jobs that come with 'tax credits'.

Carol said...

Oh christ, can't women be in the least bit objective, even if some of the facts fit their own situation? No, they go all hurt and defensive. All of them.

Anonymous said...

Facts don't matter. What matters is if they're extremely repellant, retrograde, smug, or ugly.

ben tillman said...

As Roissy, Heartiste point out, "five minutes of Alpha beats five years of beta." Most women, most of the time, will trade hot sex and Alpha males who don't commit for a lifetime of beta male boringness....

Hammer and nail again. There is no apparent "alpha" in this story.

I'm just shocked they chose a Black man to play the role of villain.

Anonymous said...

"Indeed the subtext of the argument..."

Whiskey, the subtext of YOUR argument is that you think that women ignore you because you're too nice and too smart. Umm... You constantly pull "facts" out of thin air that always turn out to be wrong, you misrepresent who you are. Nice guys don't lie, remember? And who told you you were smart? If I wanted to know how life is treating nice guys these days, it would never occur to me to ask you. I don't think you're qualified to make that particular generalization.

Tim Tebow seems super nice and will probably turn out to be a faithful husband and a good father. I have a feeling that he'd be popular with women even if he wasn't famous.

DaveinHackensack said...

"There is no such single entity as 'single mother'. Just as political prisoners and criminal prisoners are different, affluent educated women who CHOOSE to be single mothers after careful consideration(and plenty of means)are different from uneducated single mothers who are really just skankass ho's who happened to drop babies out of their pooter like they take crap out of their asses."

There are also single mothers who planned on raising their children with the children's fathers, but those fathers bailed on them (or died, or ended up in jail).

Anonymous said...

I bet this broad is heinous. Not to mention a real thrill to spend an evening with. As if somebody who uses a phrase like "recycling truly retrograde and ugly moral judgements" could possibly have a sense of humor. No wonder she's single and had to adopt some left over Africans to become a "mother".

I wonder about people that don't teach their kids to swim. 70% of the planet is covered with water! I get it, not everybody has access to a pool, but raising a kid in a manner in which the act of falling in a pond becomes a survival situation is ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

"One of the most laughable elements of the story is that it hinges on the idea that the single mother’s children are suffering because of a lack of extracurricular activities: It lingers on the idea that the swimming class, and Boy Scouts meetings, and trips to Disney that the children of the single mother are deprived of will somehow turn them into dropouts and teenage parents.........

"Who knew that fraternizing with life sized Ariels and Cinderellas was so important, so pressing, in raising your children to be healthy, upstanding citizens?

"...he has to choose one extracurricular, and this year chose football, rather than getting to do karate and swimming and Boy Scouts."

I see the red herring. Snotty Rich Harvard Girl presents these activities as equals.
There is an obvious hierarchy. 1. Swimming is a potentially life saving skill and a source of free lifelong pleasure and exercise. 2. Boy Scouts teaches manual skills and camaraderie. 3. Tie: Karate, a sport or a survival skill, depends on where you live. If you need it to survive, you probably need a gun too. Football, great if you have scholarship potential - risky if you have no health insurance. 4. Disney, a trip to an amusement park - about equal to going to a couple of movies.

She attacks - Disney. I'd forgive her, but she is too smart to not know she is being deceitful.

BTW: Dumb Mom let the kid pick Football. I bet in the same situation, the Smart Mom would pick swimming.

Paul Mendez said...

...though of course it is easier to have money, money is not the only thing that matters in raising children well ...

Paul's First Rule of Life:
"Money cannot buy happiness, but it can buy a very close simulation."

Bostonian said...

Roiphe has a point when she writes that "One of the most laughable elements of the story is that it hinges on the idea that the single mother’s children are suffering because of a lack of extracurricular activities: It lingers on the idea that the swimming class, and Boy Scouts meetings, and trips to Disney that the children of the single mother are deprived of will somehow turn them into dropouts and teenage parents."

It is the quality of their parents' genes that make the children more likely to become dropouts and teenage parents.

not a hacker said...

is— whatever the truth of the situation, which I humbly suggest is more complicated than that—extremely repellent.

There's the key to the liberal minsdet: certain things are "repellent" no matter how true. And that's why Roiphe is kidding herself if she think she's a journalist.

Anonymous said...

"(such as this white single mother in the NYT's three sons)"

Ms. Schairer has one son and 2 daughters. I would imagine swimming would be fairly difficult for him regardless, as he has aspergers and other mental illnesses.

"The innate self-congratulation of the Times piece, the smug sense that the average college-educated New York Times reader is enriching their children, insuring their mental health, while the sluttish, struggling, single mother is ruining theirs"

I think based on this line, Ms. Roiphe didn't actually read the piece. Nothing in the article paints Ms. Schairer as sluttish (nor as some hormone driven imbecile who can't see the value of "beta" white men as opposed to "alpha black men, whatever that means, as some commentators here would have it). If anything it mentions how she fruitlessly stuck by one guy even when he was clearly a loser, and since breaking up with him has been essentially dateless. The article further takes pains to show how hard Ms. Schairer tries to provide for three kids, but as expected she is living paycheck to paycheck and has to return early from surgery, while receiving food stamps.

Anonymous said...

Normalizing and promoting degeneracy. It's what they do. When we all reach the bottom, the bottom will be the new average. Equilibrium between all races will be reached.

So fuck your swim lessons, fool!

Beecher Asbury said...

...we have moved on from the facile ’50s, Norman Rockwell fantasy...

I always get annoyed when people downgrade the 1950s by poking fun at Rockwell. Leave It To Beaver, etc., by saying that it represented an unrealistic image of what families should be. Can't the same be said about contemporary media portraying their chosen heroes in a similar light?

Anonymous said...

Five minutes of alpha beats five years of beta? This beta would like some data.

Men are alleged to be the more supercharged and single-minded of the two sexes, but the last I looked a lot of guys ended up with the virgin rather than the whore.

Beecher Asbury said...

Most women, most of the time, will trade hot sex and Alpha males who don't commit for a lifetime of beta male boringness, even if the outcomes are better for their offspring.

You keep repeating the same stuff and I can't come across it in real life. Yes, I have seen lowly women with their bastard offspring. But in my limited experience, I personally know 2 female physicians, 2 attorneys and an engineer. All 5 are married to what you would probably call beta males and all have multiple, well adjusted kids. I just don't see your theory holding true in my day to day experience.

Anonymous said...

Katie Roiphe, wasn't she that feminist who at one point was saying some sensible things, or am I thinking of someone else?

Cennbeorc

Anonymous said...


For some educated and affluent women, single mothering is a calculated decision; or it's just the result of divorce or death of spouse.


If her spouse dies, she is a widow.

Where is the shame in that? I have a homeschooling friend with six kids whose husband died. She remarried a widowed homeschooling dad a few years later. Now she was tall blond and beautiful and they had a lot in common. But she wasn't a "single mom" because he wouldn't have married a single mom.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

This is a more adventurous, professional version of the cliche one hears every time the advantages of two-parent families is discussed: But some children of single mothers turn out fine! How dare you say anything bad about my, er, those children!

I was in a fatherless situation age 6-13. I turned out pretty good. But at 59, I am pretty sure that I would have been even more okay with a Dad those years.

Thomas said...

Given the supposed conservative "War on Women" that has been a Democrat talking point this election year, allow me to suggest a countervaling liberal "War on Consequences" or "War on Responsibility" where women are concerned that has been going on for much, much longer. The feminist pipe dream has been, as referenced in Anne-Marie Slaughter's recent Atlantic piece, for women to "have it all" without regard to the various trade-offs and consequences that adults must face with regards to their life choices.

Unrestrained sexuality has always had consequences, such as diseases and pregnancy. Modern medical technology and legal changes have reduced some of those consequences resulting from unintended pregnancy, at least solely where women are concerned (men who unwittingly impregnate women are at the mercy of the woman's choice whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term as to whether they're liable for 18 years of child support).

Not satisfied with the choices to prevent or terminate pregnancy or corral a man into some degree of support, women now want relief from all of the consequences of their decision to pursue flings with the men (alpha, beta, whatever) who entice their young fancy without any promise of commitment and before they've established the resources to care for their children.

The response to this NY Times piece in the last few days has centered on one of two responses. One is the type of Alice in Wonderland-style absurdity, highlighted by Roiphe's piece, that denies that the children of single parents overwhelmingly tend to do worse, to excuse them of any remaining vestige of social disapproval or bad feelings about their poor choices.

The other is made up of calls to further expand the welfare state's already ample transfers of resources from men to women to subsidize their choices and stand in vicariously for the men whom they haven't kept in their and their children's lives, further enriching the womb-to-tomb welfarist nest being built for Barack Obama's "Julia" (the comments section of the original Times piece is rife with these). At heart, what motivates this entire impulse is the primacy of the privilege of women to pursue their own impulses and desires and to be subsidized and enabled by society, no matter the impact of their choices on the welfare of their children, the interests and desires of men, or of society at large.

I'd expect, especially as the apparently endless cycle of poor outcomes of some women's flighty choices continues (especially as compared to their rather more responsible sisters') and the welfare state becomes ever increasingly fiscally unsustainable that we'll see more and more calls for men to "man up" (paging Kay Hymowitz and Bill Bennett) or perhaps even more aggressive legal interventions to tie men, biological fathers or not, to subsidizing these women and their children directly (a further extension of the marital presumption of paternity into extra-marital sexual relationships, perhaps).

In response to the Whiskey complaints (if that's what they are) regarding women's choices as to which men they sleep with or bear children by, I can only observe that the men they choose not to, by any rational calculation, have been spared considerable potential trouble and expense over the long-term by not associating with women who would make such choices. Most men I think today, even so-called "betas," tend to realize on the basis of experience and observation by their late-20's or early-30's how fortunate they were to not have been saddled with many of the women they had lusted after in their younger years.

Anonymous said...

It's sad to see NYT too engage in the War on Women.

", but the judgmental tone is outdated and wrong."

the patriarchy is finished, so why are we being judgmental again?

"money is not the only thing that matters in raising children well"

which will be ingrained in their minds after seeing their dads as ATM machines.

Men are only ancillary to the whole debate, and as feminists taunt them, "why don't you go start your own movement?"

Which is kinda surprising, because it was the feminists who wanted more presence of dads in their children's lives. Perhaps they only meant it for the infant stage? So that women can go back to work sooner and remove that pesky wage gap.(besides making men as unemployable as them)

Single-fathering would have these chickas singing a completely different tune.

Indeed, other delegates at the London summit last week explicitly argued that one of the reasons to push fathers to take more leave after their children are born is to make men as troublesome to employ as women. As long as only mothers take long periods of parental leave, they said, it is clearly true that employers will be wary of taking on a women of childbearing age.

Who?Whom?
btw it helps men too by bonding them to their children before taking them away, so that the whole experience is more effective.

Anonymous said...

"inherit the genes for sexy dominance and thus for the sons at least be that dangerous, thuggish a-hole all women love and desire."

Or maybe end up dead/serving 25 to life?

Anonymous said...

The stronger the influence that genes have on people, the less of a big deal things like extracurricular activities are. My bet is that it is not a big deal.

The outcomes of kids of widowed parents is actually pretty good:

"Although death of
a parent does put children at a disadvantage, children of widowed parents do the best of all
categories of children of single parents. Children of widowed mothers are about half as likely to
drop out of high school or have a teen birth as children of divorce or children born outside of
marriage."

If I became a widower, my kids would do a lot fewer extracurricular activities.

Anonymous said...

@Paul

I tend to think money can buy about as much happiness as the person would otherwise be capable of without money.

AmericanGoy said...

From the wikipedia on our intrepid heroine:

"Roiphe's first book, The Morning After, argued that in many instances of supposed campus date rape, women are at least partly responsible for their actions. "One of the questions used to define rape was: 'Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?' The phrasing raises the issue of agency. Why aren't college women responsible for their own intake of alcohol or drugs? A man may give her drugs, but she herself decides to take them. If we assume that women are not all helpless and naive, then they should be responsible for their choice to drink or take drugs. "If a woman's 'judgment is impaired' and she has sex, it isn't always the man's fault; it isn't necessarily always rape.""

Of course, the powers that be that control the narrative did not like this one bit, no siree bob...

The man is to be cowed, beaten down and ready to apologize to his betters - he is to be cattle, in fact.

So, action was taken, and, continuing with the wikipedia page:

"In a 1995 interview, Camille Paglia described her as "the first intellectual of her generation."[4] Paglia has since revised her opinion of Roiphe: "When Katie Roiphe came up in the mid-’90s, I thought she was going to be the intellectual of her generation, but she just withdrew after the huge flap about her first book, The Morning After. She drifted off into writing memoirs and talking about her personal life, and now has come back with some book on marriage. She didn't step up and that position is still vacant, so we now have absent two generations of young intellectuals in America.""

"Writing for The New Yorker, Katha Pollitt delivered a scathing review of The Morning After, writing, "It is a careless and irresponsible performance, poorly argued and full of misrepresentations, slapdash research, and gossip. She may be, as she implies, the rare grad student who has actually read "Clarissa", but when it comes to rape and harassment she has not done her homework.""

And so, after the beat down, our heroine was taught a valuable lesson - don't f**k with the narrative set by our masters and betters.

She picked a slightly, teenie weenie bit less controversial "controversy" to make her name on:

Roiphe attracted criticism by posing the question, "But ladies, let's be honest, is it that hard? Aren't there some things on earth that are harder [than being a mother]?"

She still wanted to put her name as "that controversial feminist chick", but this is much safer territory than going against the "sex in college while drunk should lead to the execution of the male student".

So now, having made her mark, and having a sinecure (Roiphe teaches in the Department of Journalism as an Assistant Professor and is the Assistant Director of the Cultural Criticism and Reporting Program at New York University), she is marching in lock step, her hand proudly raised high in a communist salute as our benevolent masters look on with hatred in their eyes...

AmericanGoy said...

From the wikipedia on our intrepid heroine:

"Roiphe's first book, The Morning After, argued that in many instances of supposed campus date rape, women are at least partly responsible for their actions. "One of the questions used to define rape was: 'Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?' The phrasing raises the issue of agency. Why aren't college women responsible for their own intake of alcohol or drugs? A man may give her drugs, but she herself decides to take them. If we assume that women are not all helpless and naive, then they should be responsible for their choice to drink or take drugs. "If a woman's 'judgment is impaired' and she has sex, it isn't always the man's fault; it isn't necessarily always rape.""

Of course, the powers that be that control the narrative did not like this one bit, no siree bob...

The man is to be cowed, beaten down and ready to apologize to his betters - he is to be cattle, in fact.

So, action was taken, and, continuing with the wikipedia page:

"In a 1995 interview, Camille Paglia described her as "the first intellectual of her generation."[4] Paglia has since revised her opinion of Roiphe: "When Katie Roiphe came up in the mid-’90s, I thought she was going to be the intellectual of her generation, but she just withdrew after the huge flap about her first book, The Morning After. She drifted off into writing memoirs and talking about her personal life, and now has come back with some book on marriage. She didn't step up and that position is still vacant, so we now have absent two generations of young intellectuals in America.""

"Writing for The New Yorker, Katha Pollitt delivered a scathing review of The Morning After, writing, "It is a careless and irresponsible performance, poorly argued and full of misrepresentations, slapdash research, and gossip. She may be, as she implies, the rare grad student who has actually read "Clarissa", but when it comes to rape and harassment she has not done her homework.""

And so, after the beat down, our heroine was taught a valuable lesson - don't f**k with the narrative set by our masters and betters.

She picked a slightly, teenie weenie bit less controversial "controversy" to make her name on:

Roiphe attracted criticism by posing the question, "But ladies, let's be honest, is it that hard? Aren't there some things on earth that are harder [than being a mother]?"

She still wanted to put her name as "that controversial feminist chick", but this is much safer territory than going against the "sex in college while drunk should lead to the execution of the male student".

So now, having made her mark, and having a sinecure (Roiphe teaches in the Department of Journalism as an Assistant Professor and is the Assistant Director of the Cultural Criticism and Reporting Program at New York University), she is marching in lock step, her hand proudly raised high in a communist salute as our benevolent masters look on with hatred in their eyes...

hbd chick said...

never mind the pros and cons of single motherhood -- more importantly, wikipedia's still doesn't have enough female contributors. (oh, noes!) despite now having a cosy teahouse:

How Kate Middleton’s Wedding Gown Demonstrates Wikipedia’s Woman Problem

AmericanGoy said...

Oh my gawd - I just read the article.

The article not only shows a single mother in a bad light, but, most importantly, shows this:

The single mother profiled made a very, very bad life decision on a strategic level by having a kid (then another, then yet another one) and CHOOSING not marry an african American male, and all her woes stem from this.

Effectively this black male is the villain in the piece.

This changes everything - such an article cannot, CANNOT be allowed in print - what was the NYT editorial team thinking in giving it a green light?

How can a black guy be put in such a bad light?

And this mother is a normal schlob, and not even gay, which ranks her much lower on the totem pole (sorry, feminists) than the male!

AMac said...

Yes, Katie (may I call you Katie?) is surely the go-to source for paens to Fishtown vibrancy.

Wikipedia -- "Roiphe grew up in New York City, daughter of noted feminist Anne Roiphe. She attended the all-female Brearley School, received a B.A. from Harvard in 1990, and received a Ph.D. in English Lit from Princeton in 1996. She has two children and has defended being a single mother."

Her secret seems to be that, Belmont style, she's raising her own children... within a marriage.

Anonymous said...

Katie Roiphe isn't stupid. She knows that the article didn't say "all single mothers are bad moms". But journalism is a declining industry and she wants to continue getting paid for writing. The only way to do this is to market yourself as a spokesman for some demographic and stroke their egos in your articles. She may not have the best judgement in men but at least she knows which side her bread is buttered on.

Gloria

Anonymous said...

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/07/16/zimmerman_allegedly_molested_family_friend_who_claims_he_doesn_t_like_black_people_.html

This is shameful. Because the narrative of evil Zimmerman broke down, the media now scrapes bottom of the barrel to dig up every dirty detail about his life. If you can't win the case, destroy the man's character. The only thing that should really matter is what happened on that night. This is media at its worst. If anything, the media molested, harassed, and slandered Zimmerman from day one. But when the media molestation failed, the media decided to attack every detail of his life. Instead of admitting guilt, the media is trying to justify its hatred against Zimmerman on NEW FINDINGS and CHARGES. So, this is the power that liberal media overlords have over us. This is how they wield their power. Since Zimmerman embarrassed them when the real story proved he's not a bigot and only shot Martin in self-defense, the media now have to accuse him of child molestation. This is the same media that looked the other way about Obama attending a hate church for 20 yrs? About Obama's close association with terrorist Bill Ayers? This is the media that was silent about the Knoxville Massacre? This is the same media that thinks Polanski the child-rapist should be allowed to roam free in Europe?
Shame on the power elite liberals who hog and control the media. If they do this to Zimmerman, think of what it can do to any of us.

Anonymous said...

"No, their households are not always sad and falling apart."

No indeed, the problem is that most are doomed to occupy the lower steps of the economic ladder and their children will pay for that.

Anonymous said...

Steve
The New York Times had a great article on the fight that Beverly Hills Home Owners are putting up to prevent a subway stop near their homes.

Subway Line Meets an Obstruction: Beverly Hills High School


Steve as you know, when Atlanta built their subway (called MARTA) they decided to build a subway stop right in the commercial heart of the Beverly Hills of the South (Buckhead) with predictable results

ray said...

Similarly, not all college dropouts are the same. I mean Bill Gates and some slacker bum don't belong in the same crowd simply because both dropped out. Bill Gates left college cuz he had bigger ideas.


yeah, and now Me-Me-Me-Melinda rules his bright little ass, along with his billions, campaigning tirelessly world-wide for feminism and the further destruction of fatherhood and masculinity

as for Katie(the Hate-ie) Roiphe, i heard Eve Ensler was finally dead

if Roiphe doesnt have the good grace and social responsibility to die, the least she could do is STFU b/c i am sick of the endless decades of her solipsism, gender supremacy, lies, and third-rate "journalism"

a sane culture would have put her in stocks long ago, and left her to consume herself

Anonymous said...

"Ms. Schairer has one son and 2 daughters. I would imagine swimming would be fairly difficult for him regardless, as he has aspergers and other mental illnesses."

I didn't see any mention of other mental illnesses. Does he have the "piano prodigy" doctor diagnosed Asperger's, or the deluded Mommy diagnosed Asperger's which casts a rosy glow on the antisocial behavior which keeps the other kids away version?

Because if it the former, the whole story is a useless apples and oranges comparison.

Anonymous said...

"but she just withdrew after the huge flap about her first book, "

That's unfortunate, who knew that other women were the best stiflers of women's voices.
Men could learn a thing or two.

Average Joe said...

I think the most important lesson of the NYT story is that white women shouldn't get involved with black men.

TGGP said...

The NYT could have picked a worse single mother: she could have all her children from different fathers. Roiphe isn't giving them credit for avoiding that very easy route.

Anonymous said...

"Most women, most of the time, will trade hot sex and Alpha males..."

Whiskey, just what makes you think anyone believes you know a damn thing about women, much less "most women"?

Your comments are so wild, so out of touch with reality they suggest a man living in the bedroom he occupied as a 14 year old.

Anonymous said...

So here is what is going on.

It is a competition by intellectual females for higher quality males.

By convincing less intelligent women that they can have it all, the cock carousel, the sexy black dude, the College career, etc, they remove lots of women from the competitive pool for the high quality males.

Anonymous said...

http://tigersophia.blogspot.com/

Mr. Anon said...

"The idea that this unconventional, struggling household might sometimes be fine is so astonishing that the piece reports as news that the single mother, Jessica Schairer, sometimes records “happy moments on her Facebook page.”

Fine, Ms. Roiphe, I'm quite willing to concede that the single mom and her three kids are doing swell. So don't ask me to kick in any dough to help them out, either though medicaid, AFDC, or food-stamps.

"....., money is not the only thing that matters in raising children well (nor are vacations or swimming lessons)."

Same applies to schools, Katie. Money isn't everything. Will you remember that when people like us don't want to pony-up ever more money for a public education system which we despise and are coerced into supporting through the taxes we pay?

Anonymous said...

Sorry you can't get a date Average Joe.

Bantam said...

In order to break the daily deluge of liberal nonsense, an immersion into the soothing Jackie O era nostalgia will offer a much-needed respite to iSteve readers.

Or will it?

Anonymous said...

Just another starving fat family. I bet she has cable.

slumber_j said...

As most people who have ever had any dealings with her will attest, Katie Roiphe is a supremely self-infatuated walking bummer. I suspect her of having followed a program of caloric restriction in order not to gain weight during her first pregnancy, for example: when I ran into her at a wedding a couple of months after she'd given birth that time, she was looking very trim. And her (full-term, I would later learn) daughter still looked like an dangerously underweight preemie. So don't get to know her if you don't have to, would be my advice.

On the other hand, in her early work decrying the responsibility-shirking of conventional date-rape "thought," she did at least stand up for common sense in the face of the prevailing idiocy--a brave and pretty honest move, as others here have pointed out. The problem is that her writing since then has become more and more about Katie Roiphe...and you really don't want to get to know her if you don't have to.

ben tillman said...

Steve as you know, when Atlanta built their subway (called MARTA) they decided to build a subway stop right in the commercial heart of the Beverly Hills of the South (Buckhead) with predictable results

They specifically decided NOT to build a stop at Lenox Mall, though a few years later it was built.

Udolpho.com said...

"It is the quality of their parents' genes that make the children more likely to become dropouts and teenage parents."

Weird and stupid HBDism. Genes surely have some influence, but how can you be so blockheaded not to see the very large influence of culture, peers, economic conditions, even accident (including single parenthood)? Genes do a good job of explaining group differences, but the reliance on them as THE explanation for all outcomes is quite strained.

Truth said...

"The only thing that should really matter is what happened on that night."

That's what I'm saying; it's totally insignificant that Trayvon smoked weed, or had some jewelery that wasn't his, or got suspended. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Norville Rogers said...

Jackie O, Mad Men, Downton Abbey--that was a more placid era

Anonymous said...

Maybe the NYT is just joining the Bill Gates and Co drive to push birth control for Africans (or sexual partners of Africans), masked as "caring."

Truth said...

"Genes do a good job of explaining group differences, but the reliance on them as THE explanation for all outcomes is quite strained."

Hey Sport, that's right along with the general concenses here:

The blacks are failures because of genes, but I'm a failure because my mommy (back in South Dakota) didn't wuvv me!

Silver said...

That's what I'm saying; it's totally insignificant that Trayvon smoked weed, or had some jewelery that wasn't his, or got suspended. Thank you for agreeing with me.

That came out in response to the angelic image the anti-white media invented for him. The idea was supposed to be look at this innocent little black darling who wouldn't hurt a fly, savagely gunned down by some trigger-happy "white" vigilante. That image of Lil Tray Tray was totally at odds with reality and had to be corrected.

Silver said...

"It is the quality of their parents' genes that make the children more likely to become dropouts and teenage parents."

Weird and stupid HBDism.


That statement contains the key phrase "more likely" so it's quite accurate and not really a good example of weird and stupid hbdism. One could even say "much more likely" without descending to the depths of make-it-up-as-you-go just-so hbdism.

When it comes to preventing the worst outcomes, though, it's worth focusing more on nurture than nature because avoiding the worst life outcomes is much more a matter of what low SES people don't do rather than what they do do.

This will all strike Truth as horribly "racist," I bet, even though it's pretty obvious his people would benefit greatly if they began thinking this way. I wonder if his problem is that white communities would benefit from the decrease in black pathological behavior too? Can't have that whites benefiting, ever, no way, no matter if it helps black, lol.

Anonymous said...

The title of this article could be: Outlier Rages Against the Mean.

The Ghost of Duke Kahanamoku said...

LAWRENCE, Ind. - An Indianapolis mother has been arrested on neglect charges after one of her children nearly drowned in a pool after she left him unattended for more than an hour, police said.

Vonda Goodman, 28, dropped off her 9-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter around 3:30 p.m. Sunday at the pool at Hunt Club Apartments on Calder Way in Lawrence, according to the police report.

Neither of the children can swim, they didn't have life jackets and there was no lifeguard on duty, Lawrence police said.

While Goodman went to her brother's apartment on the northeast end of the complex, the 9-year-old made it to the deep end of the pool and began to struggle, police said.

A bystander was able to rescue the boy. He was not seriously injured.

Goodman didn't return to the pool until just before 5 p.m., police said.

She was arrested on a preliminary charge of neglect.

Goodman, who is a single parent and also has 1-year-old twins, told police she feels overwhelmed caring for all of her children.

Her son told police that his mother leaves routinely leaves the kids home alone.

The children were placed in foster care.

Mr. Anon said...

"Truth said...

The blacks are failures because of genes, but I'm a failure because my mommy (back in South Dakota) didn't wuvv me!"

You seem to think that most of us who post here are, or deem ourselves to be, failures. We don't. We aren't. Perhaps you project your own failure on to the rest of us.

In any event, you needn't worry, that we think your mediocrity lies in your black genes, Spud. When it comes to failure, "Truth", you are a self-made man.

Reg C├Žsar said...

"The only thing that should really matter is what happened on that night."

That's what I'm saying; it's totally insignificant that Trayvon smoked weed, or had some jewelery that wasn't his, or got suspended. Thank you for agreeing with me.
--Truth

The point behind bringing these up is not to bear on the legal case, but to show up the press for depicting the kid as a cuddly little teddy bear.

The real criminals in this country have press cards and/or tenure.

Truth said...

"That came out in response to the angelic image the anti-white media invented for him. The idea was supposed to be look at this innocent little black darling who wouldn't hurt a fly, savagely gunned down by some trigger-happy "white" vigilante."

Is what happened before the actual incident significant, or insignificant? This is not complicated. Or is it only significant for one of the two parties.

Truth said...

"When it comes to preventing the worst outcomes, though, it's worth focusing more on nurture than nature because avoiding the worst life outcomes is much more a matter of what low SES people don't do rather than what they do do.

This will all strike Truth as horribly "racist," I bet,"

No, that's actually one of the brighter things you've actually written.

"I wonder if his problem is that white communities would benefit from the decrease in black pathological behavior too?"

Well it depends on how far you're able to stretch your 1550 SAT score intellect. Many white communities benefit GREATLY on "black" pathological behavior: guidance counselors security guards are hired, prisons are built, staffed, and maintained, probation, fire, police, parole, drug counselors, contractors, motels near the prisons and halfway houses, restaurants, check cashing, fast food, etc., etc., etc.

Just because YOU haven't found a way to benefit doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There is a good reason it is encouraged in every facet of our daily lives.

Truth said...

"You seem to think that most of us who post here are, or deem ourselves to be, failures. We don't."

One can only assume by your constant deflection. That post was in direct response to Udolpho/pleasureman and his website which he is, apparently, quite proud of; you be the judge:

http://mpcdot.com/forums/index.php?/topic/4071-troof-memorial-thread/page__p__72135__fromsearch__1#entry72135

"We aren't. Perhaps you project your own failure on to the rest of us."

Perhaps, and perhaps you consider yourself a failure. You never say anything about yourself, only criticize others.

"In any event, you needn't worry, that we think your mediocrity lies in your black genes, Spud. When it comes to failure, "Truth", you are a self-made man."

If I don't know that you are a failure, how do you know that I am one?

steve said...

Blacks chicks who are pumping out babies from several different fathers are having sex with alphas? I thought most black men were either unemployed or in prison. Maybe there's some mythical black Harvard grad servicing all these women in the ghetto.

Anonymous said...

steve said...
Blacks chicks who are pumping out babies from several different fathers are having sex with alphas? I thought most black men were either unemployed or in prison. Maybe there's some mythical black Harvard grad servicing all these women in the ghetto.

I think the point is that for black women, black Harvard grads are not "alphas", but gangsters are.

papabear said...

"single mothering is a calculated decision"

A calculated decision of not having a father to raise the child. Still a bad decision.

ben tillman said...

I think the point is that for black women, black Harvard grads are not "alphas", but gangsters are.

Maybe in general, but not necessarily.

I'm not a Harvard grad, but I am an alumnus of another Ivy League university. I get a real kick out of the fact that the last Black woman who put the moves on me was attracted to me ... and cornerbacks, the fastest of the fast.

When I met her she was dating a cornerback who was still playing at her alma mater. Then she moved on to a starting corner for the local NFL team.

Anonymous said...

"I wonder if his problem is that white communities would benefit from the decrease in black pathological behavior too?"

Well it depends on how far you're able to stretch your 1550 SAT score intellect. Many white communities benefit GREATLY on "black" pathological behavior: guidance counselors security guards are hired, prisons are built, staffed, and maintained, probation, fire, police, parole, drug counselors, contractors, motels near the prisons and halfway houses, restaurants, check cashing, fast food, etc., etc., etc.


Wise observation, troof. Just get black people to break enough windows and we can all retrain as glaziers, eliminating unemployment.

Mr. Anon said...

"Truth said...

Perhaps, and perhaps you consider yourself a failure. You never say anything about yourself, only criticize others."

Why in hell would I talk about myself? This forum isn't for talking about me. Plus, I prefer to remain anonymous, given the heterodox nature of this website.

"If I don't know that you are a failure, how do you know that I am one?"

Based on all the idiot things that you have posted on this forum over the years, you are certainly credulous and quite possibly stupid. I count that as "failure".

Truth said...

"This forum isn't for talking about me. Plus, I prefer to remain anonymous, given the heterodox nature of this website."

Nothing is about you. You haven't made it so, hence you're still an nobody.

Anonymous said...

" slumber_j said...
As most people who have ever had any dealings with her will attest, Katie Roiphe is a supremely self-infatuated walking bummer. I suspect her of having followed a program of caloric restriction in order not to gain weight during her first pregnancy, for example: when I ran into her at a wedding a couple of months after she'd given birth that time, she was looking very trim. And her (full-term, I would later learn) daughter still looked like an dangerously underweight preemie. So don't get to know her if you don't have to, would be my advice."

Roiphe Is a social X-Ray, how eighties! I guess there is a danger to reading Bonfire too young. I remember Tom Wolfe admitted he was a body snob, I think he thought heart attacks were for big bellied proles.

I don't know if it matters but Roiphe is 13 years older than Schairer. Schairer has accepted her role as a suffering single mom and takes solace in food. Roiphe's bod (not much she can do about the mug) says she is still open to a new daddy opportunity. A little panis might prove she is dedicated to the life. Can you imagine these two talking child rearing over a cup of coffee in Bryant Park. Penelope Trunk, of previous posts, seems much more, to use a term that seemed important in the 70s, authentic.

credible witness said...

One thing I read convinced me Roiphe is a narcissist (overused word, but worth it here.) She was describing Alice Liddell, little English girl who inspired Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland, and asked him to write it all down for her. Roiphe goes on and on about Alice's big, huge black eyes, and black hair.
Now I have been an Alice Liddell fan since childhood, since before it was cool and everywhere (in the literary world) Used to be you have to wait for an article in the book section, or find some academic library, to see a picture of her. Now it's easy on the web. But way back then, I read a bio of Alica and she was was described as having blue eyes and brown hair. Probably got darker with age, but sure not "black."
I guess Roiphe felt more revolutionary, finding what almost seems like some sort of third worlder disquised as the Dean of Christ Church's daughter.
Well, anyway, Alice's mom, Lorina Reeves, was described as a "Spanish type", so some of her children did have a dark look, but Alice did not have black or brown eyes. Look it up, Ms. Roiphe.

Anonymous said...

http://gawker.com/5856156/katie-roiphe-saw-a-fight

The comments about her ethnicity are hysterical. BTW She is on YouTube and she comes across much younger than her 40+ years, Yummy Mummy.

Mr. Anon said...

"Truth said...

Nothing is about you. You haven't made it so, hence you're still an nobody."

Actually I'm quite happy with my life, and in no way consider myself a "nobody".

Perhaps you do, despite your endless gassing on about yourself. You sound really bitter there, Sprout.

Truth said...

"Actually I'm quite happy with my life, and in no way consider myself a "nobody"."

Certainly you do, Grasshopper, it's reflected in your choice of nom de plume. No one forced you to chose that one.

Mr. Anon said...

"Truth said...

Certainly you do, Grasshopper, it's reflected in your choice of nom de plume. No one forced you to chose that one."

Most everyone here chooses to remain anonymous. Even you. Or are we to suppose that there is a world-famous celebrity known as "Truth".

Your ridiculous choice of screen-name, however - "Truth" - reveals the unwarranted arrogance and groundless sense of self-worth so typical of black men.

Truth said...

Yes, but the point is, Mr. 150 IQ PHD; I chose a name that I felt was indicitave of what I had to offer...and so did you.

"Mr. Anonymous" just screams, well, I don't want to be a nobody, I want to set myself apart from the other anonymi, I want people to know who I am, but dangit, I just don't have anything to offer!

Mr. Anon said...

"Truth said...

Yes, but the point is, Mr. 150 IQ PHD; I chose a name that I felt was indicitave of what I had to offer..."

If that's what you were going for, you should have chosen the screen-name "Nothing", or perhaps "Less Than Nothing".

""Mr. Anonymous" just screams, well, I don't want to be a nobody, I want to set myself apart from the other anonymi, I want people to know who I am, but dangit, I just don't have anything to offer!"

I post as "Mr. Anon", not "Mr. Anonymous". Anyway - No, dipstick, "Mr. Anon" was chosen as nothing more than a relatively unique identifier which yet still preserves my anonymity. Same goes for "Truth", by the way - unless there is an internationally famous celebrity named "Truth" of whom I am unaware.