Tag Archives: parents

PARENTS: Children of the Great Scattering

PARENTS: Children of the Great Scattering

Like fools, we rushed in. I came of age politically in the 1960s, earned my doctorate in the 1970s, and taught social work students (mostly at masters and doctoral level) until retiring in 2011.

In the first period of the sexual revolution, my students and I mostly celebrated the revolution as a period of liberation for adults, especially women, from the constraints of tradition, law, and custom.

Insofar as we considered at all the impacts of the revolution on children, families, and communities, we minimized them or saw them as beneficial. Easy divorce would free children from having to grow up in loveless, conflict-ridden families. Thanks to the pill and abortion, all children would be “wanted.” Children would be freed from the stigma of their parents’ divorce or their mothers’ unmarried status, cohabitation with an unrelated man, or other nontraditional family structures.

We didn’t consider seriously the coming drop in fertility and the shrinkage of families. What was the impact on children to spend, as half of them now do, at least some of their childhood without one or both biological parents? What was the social impact of fatherlessness, of growing up with few or no siblings, of having few cousins, aunts, uncles, or little involvement of the father’s side of the family?

Sometimes, especially at the end of the 20th century, a family scholar sounded the alarm, but far too few of us seriously examined these questions.


These issues go to the heart of almost every social problem social workers address. Yet my students and I had difficulty discussing them frankly, no doubt in part because many or most of us were directly affected by them in a world of divorce, premarital sex, cohabitation, and lone parenthood.

There was also concern that noticing the adverse outcomes in education, criminal justice involvement, employment, mental health, and just about every other social indicator, from fractured families and fatherless children would stigmatize single mothers, children born out of wedlock, and cohabiting couples.

So we talked, not about the family, but families, as if one kind of family structure was as good as another and it was discriminatory to say otherwise. We could call for more public resources to meet the needs of single mothers and their children and praise the heroic struggles made by such mothers, but not worry that such family structures themselves disadvantaged children or that the government was bankrolling and incentivizing them by substituting for the role of fathers as providers and protectors.

Many of us saw such dependence on government as liberating women and children from dependence on men. Some described marriage, in the common phrase of the time, as a “hitting license”—ignoring the research evidence that women were safer in marriage than in any other kind of relationship, such as cohabitation. Children were most at risk of violence and abuse when living with their mother and her partner who wasn’t the children’s biological father.

Textbooks used in marriage and family courses treated marriage as pathological rather than what it had been understood as since it was recognized in the first legal codes millennia ago—as the optimum setting for raising children and assuring paternal responsibility. They continued to expound these distortions and expose hundreds of thousands of students to their ideology long after researchers of all political persuasions had shown them to be false.

Against all evidence, textbook authors, publishers, and professors persisted in perpetuating a false narrative about marriage and the needs of children as if it were factual.

Children of the Great Scattering

In her important new book, “Primal Screams: How the Sexual Revolution Created Identity Politics,” Mary Eberstadt shows how the children of the children of the sexual revolution responded to this brave new world with primal rage.

They grew toward adulthood in a state of panic over identity. They had lost the experience of a natural, intact family, not to war or disease but to the sexual consumerism of their parents. In the process, they were bereft of a clear answer to the question “Who am I?”

Previous generations, Eberstadt says, had answered the question in terms of their expectation of growing up in a family—the expectation that they would have children and a family themselves, that parents and siblings and extended family would remain their primal community, and thus, that it was a tragedy not to be part of a family.

Eberstadt discusses many aspects of the “Great Scattering” of families and the angry responses to it.

In some cases, young people whose interests were ignored when they were babies—like the children of anonymous sperm donors who were conceived with the deliberate intent from the start that they would grow up fatherless, without knowledge of or contact with their own biological father—found their own voice as young adults.

Unlike adoption, which had developed as a way to provide a child without a functioning family with parents, the aim in surrogacy was to meet the desires of adults, not the needs of children. But those children grew up and expressed publicly their sense of loss, as in organizations like The Anonymous Us Project and Stop Surrogacy Now.

One of the most striking manifestations of the anger and loss of sense of belonging is the profound shift in the pop music that children of the Great Scattering drove up the charts. It was no longer the music of abandon of their parents’ youth but, as Eberstadt says, the music of abandonment. It was anger—expressed most powerfully, but not only, by rap superstar Eminem, against parents, especially fathers, for breaking up their families and leaving them to grow up with a dysfunctional childhood.

As Eberstadt puts it, “During the same years in which progressive-minded and politically correct adults have been excoriating Ozzie and Harriet as artifacts of 1950s-style oppression, millions of American teenagers have enshrined a new generation of music idols whose shared signature in song after song is to rage about what not having had a nuclear family had done to them.”

In some cases, especially on college campuses, the identity rage took on irrational, preadolescent forms. Protesters behaved like children having a tantrum, shouting down speakers on campus with different views from their own, crying, chanting, screaming, or taping their mouths shut as if they were the ones being silenced rather than doing the silencing.

Shorn of identity rooted in family, argues Eberstadt, young people adopted alternative nonfamily identities as ways of being—defining the self in terms of combinations or “intersections” of race, sex, sexual appetite, and “gender”—with some curious results.

In its coarseness, vulgarity, swagger, and belligerence, says Eberstadt, feminism in its latest phase (as in the Women’s March) has adopted some of the more obnoxious features of the “toxic masculinity” it deplores. Feminism manifests the “routine renorming of women toward men”—the message continually given to women that, to succeed, they must behave like men. It’s a message that, far from liberating women, traps them in the paradigm of being “failed men.”

These, a generation later, are some of the poison fruits of the sexual revolution that we rationalized as being in the interests of everyone. But it was, as much as anything, a revolution in parenthood—in the subordination of children’s needs to the desires of adults.

Paul Adams is a professor emeritus of social work at the University of Hawaii and was a professor and associate dean of academic affairs at Case Western Reserve University. He is the co-author of “Social Justice Isn’t What You Think It Is” and has written extensively on social welfare policy and professional and virtue ethics.

PARENT ALERT: Drowning doesn’t look like drowning – the guide every parent should read

Parent Alert

It is a far more common occurrence than you might think, yet most of us have no idea what drowning really looks like. Clue number one: forget everything you’ve seen in the films. There’s no yelling or splashing; it’s undramatic and easy to ignore.

Drowning is the third leading cause of accidental death worldwide, with children particularly susceptible, according to the World Health Organization. For infants up to the age of three, it’s the number one cause in countries like Australia where exposure to water is more regular.

Alarmingly, nearly half of these drownings will take place within 25 yards of the caregiver, and in 10 per cent of cases, the adult will watch it happen without realising.

Mario Vittone, a Florida-based expert in sea rescue, develops training courses on the subject of drowning. Below he explains how to spot the signs, and possibly even save a life.

A cautionary tale

The new captain jumped from the deck, fully dressed, and dashed through the water. A former lifeguard, he kept his eyes on his victim as he headed straight for the couple swimming between their anchored sportfisher and the beach.

“I think he thinks you’re drowning,” the husband said to his wife. They had been splashing each other and she had screamed but now they were just standing, neck-deep on the sand bar. “We’re fine, what is he doing?” she asked, a little annoyed. “We’re fine!” the husband yelled, waving him off, but his captain kept swimming hard.

”Move!” he barked as he sprinted between the stunned owners. Directly behind them, not ten feet away, their nine-year-old daughter was drowning. Safely above the surface in the arms of the captain, she burst into tears.

How did this captain know – from 50 feet away – what the father couldn’t recognise from just ten? 

Common misconceptions

Drowning is not the violent, splashing, call for help that most people expect. The captain was trained to recognise drowning by experts and years of experience.

The father, on the other hand, had learned what drowning looks like by watching television. If you spend time on or near the water (hint: that’s almost all of us) then you should make sure that you know what to look for whenever people enter the water.

Until she cried a tearful, “Daddy,” upon rescue, she hadn’t made a sound. As a former Coast Guard rescue swimmer, I wasn’t surprised at all by this story. Drowning is almost always a deceptively quiet event.

The Instinctive Drowning Response

– so-named by Francesco A Pia, PhD, is what people do to avoid actual or perceived suffocation in the water. And it does not look like most people expect.

There is very little splashing, no waving, and no shouting or calls for help of any kind. To get an idea of just how quiet and undramatic from the surface drowning can be, consider this: It is the number two cause of accidental death in children, age 15 and under (just behind vehicle accidents); of the approximately 750 children who will drown next year, about 375 of them will do so within 25 yards of a parent or other adult. In 10 per cent of those drownings, the adult will actually watch them do it, having no idea it is happening.

California Schools Force Students – Parents have No Say

I am shocked but I’m not surprised.

A Facebook user named Stefanie Duncan Fetzer recently posted  a memo she uncovered from the Orange County Department of Education explaining to their employees that parents have no right to oppose what the schools decide to teach their children.

The situation started when Orange County School District told their parents that they would soon be teaching their children material that discussed gender, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation. Some parents objected and told the schools that they’d prefer to pull their children out of these lessons, so the school checked with the government and learned that, thanks to California’s fascist laws, they could force the students to take the class… and the parents couldn’t do anything about it. (Other than move out of California that is.)


I’m sorry people, but dammit! Wake up!

New sex ed curriculum was introduced last year. This curriculum was not written by educators. Or education specialists. It was written by activists. Activists!

The new sex ed curriculum includes in depth ‘education’ on gender, gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation. Now, maybe you’re ok with this. Good for you. But, not all parents think it is the place of a teacher to have these sensitive discussions with their children.

In CA, parents have the right to opt their child out of the sex ed curriculum. Except in this case. No opt out. This new curriculum is magically exempt from opt out!

At least the guys in OC are generous enough to inform that parents still have the freedom to discuss this issue with their kids and let them know whether or not they disagree with the policy or the material. I’m sure it’s just a matter of time before that freedom is gone as well!

See, California law allows parents to excuse their children from parts of Sexual Education and HIV education… but the law explicitly excludes material involving gender and sexual orientation from Sex Ed.

Meaning the parents can keep their kids out of Sex Ed. but they have to let the school teach their children about sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, etc… As if these things weren’t part-and-parcel of what Sex Ed. is.

Yes, the school can’t teach your kids about HIV or the consequences of pre-marital sex without your say-so… but they can teach your kids about crossdressing, transgenderism, what homosexuality, heterosexuality, pansexuality, and any other type of sexuality is, even if you explicitly tell them not to. In fact, the curriculum even normalizes gender dysphoria (which science still consider a genuine psychological disorder) by pretending that it’s a totally natural thing.

But hey, if you read further down in the memo… the school does give parents permission to tell their children that they “disagree with some or all of the information presented in the instructional program.” Further, the school system says that parents can “express these views on these subjects with their children.”

Well… thanks, for telling us what we can and can’t tell our children.



This isn’t the first time that Californians have been warned about California’s Healthy Youth Act – you can read more about it here.

PARENTS SCHOOL ALERT New Book ‘Communism for Kids’

Communism For Kids

In order to make the deadliest ideology of the 20th century palatable to young Americans, “Communism for Kids” is coming to a bookstore near you.

This newly released book from MIT Press “proposes a different kind of communism, one that is true to its ideals and free from authoritarianism.”

The death toll from communist regimes in the 20th century is well-documented. One study found that more people were killed under communism than homicide and genocide combined, and only 9 million more people were killed in World War I and World War II combined than under governments of this ideology.

Another study showed how the mass killings of civilians by their own governments took an immediate nosedive after the collapse of the Soviet Union and international communism.

According to the Amazon synopsis, the book weaves a fairy tale of “jealous princesses, fancy swords, displaced peasants, mean bosses, and tired workers.”

It is bewildering why MIT Press would publish a book that cutesies up the political creed that gave the world Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, and many more of the world’s most prolific mass murderers. None of these brutal dictators are mentioned in the book, according to The Washington Free Beacon.

Communism seemingly gets a pass to be reimagined as a sweet fable while it’s inconceivable that a book called “Fascism for Kids” would ever be printed by a reputable publisher.

Marion Smith of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation wrote, according to The Washington Free Beacon:

While I can imagine a book so titled that would make a valuable contribution to a reader’s understanding of the truth about communism, the book MIT Press published is not it. ‘Communism for Kids’ whitewashes and infantilizes ideas that, when put into action, have cost more than 100 million lives.

This odd attempt to get kids into communism is unlikely to spawn a new generation of true believers on its own, but it does highlight the growing problem for younger Americans who are generally clueless about even recent history.

As The Daily Signal previously reported, a study from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation found that millennials, in particular, are stunningly ignorant about what occurred under the Soviet Union and other communist regimes just a generation ago.

One-third of millennials surveyed actually believe that more people were killed under former President George W. Bush than under Soviet dictator Stalin.

If one truly wants to teach young Americans what communism is really about, it would be better to hand them a copy of the classic “Animal Farm,” by George Orwell.

The book is an allegory—using farm animals as stand-ins—about the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia a century ago. The revolutionary promise of “all animals are equal” is used to overthrow farmers, but quickly turns into a new, even more oppressive tyranny under animal overlords

A reign of forced labor, intimidation, and terror puts the animals under the thumb of their new masters—their ideals used to prop up an all-powerful regime. The refashioned creed becomes “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” In the end, human, or rather “animal,” nature proved to be more powerful than any ideology.

As the Roman poet Horace once said: “You can drive out nature with a pitchfork, but she will ever hurry back.”

This lesson from Orwell would be a much better way to teach young people about destructive ideology than a fanciful account of how “true” communism—minus the mean authoritarian stuff and mass murder—would be truly grand.

Under communism, tyranny is a feature, not a bug.

By Jarrett Stepman

BAD PARENTS: 20 Something Males Prefer Video Games To Full Time Work

Lazy Males

Parents you are hurting your sons by delaying their maturity.

Stop set a date and tell them they must find a place to live and full time employment. Stop coddling them!

Men in their 20s “are working many fewer hours than they did a decade and a half ago,” reports Christopher Matthews at Axios, “and the biggest reason [why] is that they prefer to play video games.”

That’s according to a new survey from the National Bureau of Economic Research. It suggests that “reduced work for prime-age men” isn’t because they find jobs.

“It’s that, rather than accept what is out there, they choose the contemporary equivalent of hanging out at the pool hall or the race track.”

Meanwhile, “a lot more men in this age group are living with their parents or some other close relative” than in 2000. They think: “Why not have a little fun in your 20s and work in your 80s?”

New York Post

KIDS, GUNS & SWIMMING POOLS: 3 Myths That Can Hurt Your Children

New York University professor Dave Kopel has written an important article about the many myths surrounding guns and kids.

“Scary Tales About Kids & Guns” separates fact from fiction. The article reveals important information that every parent should know about guns and their children.

Myth 1: People who use guns to commit murder are regular people who get angry or ‘snap’.

Fact: 90% of murderers have criminal records. The majority of gun crime is committed by criminals. [NY Times April 8, 2006 – The Baltimore Sun Jan 1, 2007]

Myth 2: Accidental shootings of children are at epidemic proportions.

Fact: Since 1950 the rate of fatal gun accidents among children has declined by 90%. In 2007 65 children died in gun accidents in the United States. [Brief District of Columbia v. Heller]

Myth 3: Being killed by guns is a leading cause of death for children.

Fact: Bathtubs kill twice as many children as guns and swimming pools kill three times as many children as guns in the U.S. each year. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]

The facts are clear from a comprehensive study of gun accidents [Accidents Analysis & Prevention Waller & Whorton]; people who cause these accidents have higher rates of arrest for violence, alcohol abuse, highway crashes and moving violations. Personality defects and criminal behavior is the primary contributor to gun accidents.

While gun crime is a serious issue in the United States accurate facts are critical when parents make decisions about their children’s safety.


Protecting Your Children How To Hire Babysitters Or Choose Daycare

The following information will help you to better protect your children from abuse by nannies, babysitters and aggressive family/friends. Please feel free to share this information sheet with others. You may contact our firm info@seraph.net at any time if you need additional information.


When you interview potential childcare workers, it is important to understand their mental stability and their potential for violence. The following questions will help you to “profile” their mental state and make a more accurate decision.

  1. Describe the best family you ever worked for and describe the worst family you ever worked for?

Listen carefully to their answers, does the person talk briefly about the best family and excessively about the worst family. Watch for statements like “personality conflict”. Does the person take any responsibility for their role in leaving the worst family? If not, this person is an emotionally immature person who lives in denial.

  1. What are some things that bothered you about the last family that you worked for?

Does the person give a long list with a “know it all” tone. Are their comments constructive or angry?

  1. Did you ever make suggestions?

Listen for negative comments like, “yes, but they never listened to me”.

  1. How would you solve a problem with the kids fighting over a toy for example?

Wrong answers would contain themes of confrontation or excessive disciplinary attitudes.

  1. Who is your best friend and how would you describe your friendship?

Plenty of people cannot come up with a single name in response to this question. If they give a name that is not listed as a reference, ask why? Then ask if you can call that friend as a reference.

The use of hidden cameras is an excellent legal way to monitor the behavior of childcare workers or others who enter your home.