Thursday, August 12, 2010

A Hollywood liberal takes on the family

Jennifer Aniston is a liberal when it comes to family. The American actress thinks that fathers are optional in family life; that it is a sign of progress for women to have the option to go it alone; and that a family can be made up of any arrangement of people who love each other.

JENNIFER Aniston has praised single mothers and urged women not to settle for a man just to have a baby.

During a press conference for new movie The Switch, in which she plays a woman who uses a sperm donor to get pregnant, the former Friends star claimed that she was pleased that more women were being brave enough to raise children on their own.

"Women are realising it more and more, knowing that they don't have to settle with a man just to have that child," she told People.

"Times have changed, and that is also what is amazing is that we do have so many options these days, as opposed to our parents' days when you can't have children because you have waited too long."

The 41-year-old actress, who admitted during the conference that she still hoped to become a mother one day, also spoke out against the notion of a nuclear family, adding: "The point of the movie is, what is it that defines family? It isn't necessarily the traditional mother, father, two children and a dog named Spot.

"Love is love and family is what is around you and who is in your immediate sphere. That is what I love about this movie. It is saying it is not the traditional sort of stereotype of what we have been taught as a society of what family is."

Why is this a liberal view? If you follow liberalism in thinking that autonomy is the highest good, then you'll want multiple forms of family life to choose from rather than just the single, traditional one; you'll approve of women acting independently of men to have children; and you'll like the idea of defining family not around a definite traditional structure but more vaguely and fluidly around your own unique personal circumstances ("family is ... who is in your immediate sphere").

This liberal view will no doubt sound good to some people. It might seem more personally free, or perhaps there will be a feel good factor in thinking that love is all you need.

But love isn't always enough. I was reminded of this when watching a couple of episodes of a TV show that has aired recently here in Australia. Each episode followed a pair of wayward, self-destructive Australian teens whose lives were in free fall. One pair was sent to live with some strict parents on an Australian sheep station, the next on a Texan cattle ranch. The teens all played up at first but then some tough love and some productive work on the farms turned them around.

What was so significant about this? All four teens came from single mother households. There was not a dad in sight. And the single mums all seemed reasonably middle-class: they were articulate, lived in nice homes and expressed much love for their children.

But still the children were confused and angry. It was only when the host fathers successfully asserted paternal authority and care that the teenagers began to have a change of attitude. This was especially true of the boy who was sent to Texas: he thrived when he worked alongside his American host father and received praise and encouragement. He stated openly his need to have an older man in his life as a father figure.

A well-functioning nuclear family of father, mother and children is the best environment to raise children. It provides the key relationships needed for the successful socialisation of children.

It's true that there are families which don't function well and suffer break-down. But this doesn't change what constitutes the basic family type that a society ought to encourage.

It's true as well that there are children brought up by single mothers who turn out well. Still, the statistics show that on average children do better with both a father and a mother. For instance, a recent American study which compared outcomes between children raised in traditional families and those raised through donor inseminated single mothers found that:

Donor offspring are significantly more likely than those raised by their biological parents to struggle with serious, negative outcomes such as delinquency, substance abuse, and depression, even when controlling for socio-economic and other factors.

Donor offspring and those who were adopted are twice as likely as those raised by biological parents to report problems with the law before age 25.

Donor offspring are about 1.5 times more likely than those raised by their biological parents to report mental health problems, with the adopted being closer to twice as likely as those raised by biological parents to report the same thing.

Donor offspring are more than twice as likely as those raised by biological parents to report substance abuse problems. ("My Daddy's Name Is Donor" released by the Commission on Parenthood's Future, executive summary, p.9)

Note that the mothers choosing donor insemination were better educated and slightly better off financially than the comparison group of traditional couples - so the worse outcomes can't be put down to socio-economic factors.

Jennifer Aniston is wrong. Family is not just "what is around you". It's not just you and your dog or you and your friends. Such relationships might be important to people in various ways, but family is something else. Family has to do with fatherhood and motherhood and with the care, nurturing and socialisation of children.


  1. Check this out:

    Feminists devalue marriage and promote meaningless sex as "empowerment", then are baffled and outraged when their daughters are sluts.

    Look carefully in the article for any mention of husbands, fathers, or marriage. You won't see them...

  2. "Note that the mothers choosing donor insemination were better educated and slightly better off financially than the comparison group of traditional couples - so the worse outcomes can't be put down to socio-economic factors."

    Furthermore, they probably chose the sperm very carefully, looking for the seed of intelligent and successful men, so the increased problems in the children can't be attributed to genetics either. If anything, the problems would be worse if the mothers were less discriminating in finding donor sperm.

  3. Mark,

    I was writing an email to a friend outlining everything you've said on your blog...the Swedish post and those marriage statistics you posted, matriarchy, patriarchy...all the stuff you talk about.

    THEN....afterwards I send the email, close it up, go to and Jenn had Just said this and I started laughing hysterically!


    But take heart, lots of people on here in the US went apeshit over those remarks :)

    The consensus here in America is "Now we know why Jennifer Aniston is Single"

  4. The sad thing is though (I'm the anonymous from above) the male friend I sent the email to just doesn't get it.

    I even said to him "it's pathetic that I a single female have to defend heterosexual men to heterosexual men"

    Eish! :( Save Australia!

  5. Anonymous (12:46), interesting article you linked to. You're spot on. The "mother feminists" are deluded. They helped to destroy a culture of relationships based on marriage. When young men and women are focused on marriage they look for a range of qualities in the opposite sex. But if it's not about marriage but about casual sex, then it's inevitable that men will start to value women for their "hotness" and that women will respond to this by competing to be "hot".

    What happened was utterly predictable but it seems to baffle the feminist mothers.

    Saint Louis, good point.

  6. One more thing....

    So while arguing with Americans on this Jennifer Aniston was amazing to notice...

    There's three types of people...people who can see the 'big picture', people who take everything personal, and then the self-centered asses.

    I don't think that saying a child needs a dad AND mom is an insult to single-moms. But there are so many women (mainly black from the looks of who was emailing me) who jump on that saying "What you think
    I'm a bad mother cuz I'm raising my kids alone?" and I'd be like "Ummm...nooo....I think your awesome to take your kid out of a bad situation of an abusive father...BUT ideally...having a father and mother is better as there are plenty of men who are not abusive like your ex"

    It was crazzyyy....and truthfully my real view on these women was "Wow I know why you chose a deadbeat dad to begin with...cuz your an idiot as shown by your inability to understand this generalized concept" (but I can't say that when people actually know my real name...and it would be pointless as the women are just too dumb to understand high level concepts) [One woman spat at me..."see how the other side lives" as if I come from a stable family HA! There was a racial undertone going on as well Mark here in the states that you guys are lucky not to deal with in Oz]

    Anyways, so then there was a 2nd more Dangerous type of woman...the women above are obviously low IQ....but then this type is High IQ and evil...

    The white single sperm donor mother. I heard from one of those and I realized that health insurance here in the US pays for in-vitro for healthy single women who can't get married. And I also realized that the reason why these women weren't adopting is because they could never pass the financial aspect of the rigorous adoption why not take advantage of a health insurance loophole and spread the cost to others which shows even more innate selfishness?

    The overriding attitude of the second type of woman was "I WANT A BABY! GIVE IT TO ME NOW OR ELSE! Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me" with absolutely no thought given to morality, to the child's future (as given by the statistics you posted), whether its right to put this cost on society of a possibly damaged baby and the in-vitro costs...especially when said women all made it clear "I have no problem getting men, but none are worthy of me"

    These women are just selfish, evil, man-haters. Jenn has shown herself as one of them.

    Anyways.......absolutely ridiculous.....Too many outspoken idiots, which massive emotional chips on their shoulders.

  7. Yes, but the impression in their minds is that this 'family' which conservatives seek to preserve, is merely a social construct, cunningly devised by the Vatican and Proto-Nazi witchburners, upon which to maintain the eternity of their gender privilege and race power.

    Read the tract on this subject by the English antiquary and jurist Sir Henry Maine; family is a natural institution antecedent to religion, law and political society. It is primeval and unalterable - unless by violent depravation from the outside.

  8. All this "do your own thing" thing is so much easier when you're as rich as Jennifer Aniston. Its interesting to note that the children of rich mothers didn't do better.

  9. "When young men and women are focused on marriage they look for a range of qualities in the opposite sex. But if it's not about marriage but about casual sex, then it's inevitable that men will start to value women for their "hotness" and that women will respond to this by competing to be "hot".

    The difficulty with this point is that young men and women have powerful sexual feelings and in most cases lack the maturity, judgement and resources to evaluate a potential spouse's suitability as a marriage partner. Even with the best motivations they are highly susceptible to fall in love with and marry people who are unsuitable as life partners. Thus parents and family members have to take a key role in the assessment of their children's life partners.

  10. Anniston is an aging spurned spurned spinster who is resentful that the media portray her as an aging spurned spinster. I think she is lying to herself in order to convince herself that what she desperately wants, a traditional marriag with children, and cannot have, isn't really that great after all. It is just the old fox and sour grapes story.

    It seems a lot of liberals are just rejected people who are sad but try to justify their rejection rather than changing their relationship repelling charactaristics. If every man is an autonomous island, then they aren't missing much by not forging bonds based on family, culture or heritage. And they are jealous so they actively try to break others' bonds.

  11. Hello there OZConservative. I've come here to post here some discussions for you all. Hopefully I aided the discussions here (I'm only 18 so I'm sorry if I don't write well):

    A liberal Hollywood takes on the family ---

    The myth of autonomy ---

    The lost art of commitment ---

    The choice of children ---

    Disillusioned and unmarried ---

    Pornography and mockery of the divine ---

    The egatarian marriage is doomed ---

    Feminism, the men's movement and radical autonomy ---

    Is Islam's problem a lack of modernity? (connections to discussions on civility) ---

    Now that this part is finished these next posts concern Christianity and/or the culture:

    Shifts in Christianity ---

    Old fashioned yearnings ---

    Full war or culture war ---

    I say let the system collapse. Liberalism with it's utopian ideals and mindless embrace of autonomy, moral relativism, hedonism, victim mentality and multiculturalism has no substance. Liberals are going through the internet saying that conservatism is dying. It isn't dead. This is just the first time since the 1960's that conservatives and Christians are being disconnected from liberals. Liberals are truly like parasites. And the saddest ones are the ones whom have misplaced compassion.

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions ---

    If they don't want our help then good riddance. Forget about saving the culture being number one priority. It's being dead for a long time. Let's concentrate on preserving ourselves for now. Then concentrate on renewing the culture.

  12. Let us all remember that Aniston had a husband, a potential father to her hypothetical children, and from what I can tell she drove him off. That pretty much says quite a lot about her, and the values she promulgates.

    As a young man, I used to wonder how extreme pyramidal societies, such as feudalism, came about. I'm beginning to understand: a few competent men commanded all who follow them with simple rules such as "He who does not work, does not eat", because that's all most people could understand.

  13. Family also has to do with biology, a bond between people that cannot be erased.

    You can choose your friends, but not your family, and doesn't that just drive liberals mad.

  14. I would like to point out to everyone that there is no such thing as a single mother, because the role that the father plays in traditional families is slowly being removed and replaced by the Father State, by the provisions of welfare in its various forms and incarnations. So the question is which family structure is better at raising children, as well as maintaining and creating social capital. The traditional family, based on the union of a man and a woman, or the the "liberal" family, in which a woman joins with the state, to the exclusion a personal father, in order to raise children. It seems that many femos prefer to be marry to the sate than deal with a real life human being(man, father, etc.)