Don’t paint all sin­gle fa­thers with same brush

The Washington Times Daily - - Opinion -

I have been gen­er­ally ap­pre­cia­tive of Suzanne Fields’ syn­di­cated col­umns, and the evo­lu­tion of “Col­lat­eral dam­age from sex­ual rev­o­lu­tion” (Com­men­tary, Thurs­day) was well-thought-out. How­ever, she di­gresses into name-call­ing when it comes to the male sex.

Ms. Fields refers to bish­ops as “[t]he celi­bate bish­ops in their gowns” and uses mis­char­ac­ter­i­za­tions such as “Rick San­to­rum only dreams of the day when con­tra­cep­tion will be for­bid­den.” Where is the colum­nist whose work I usu­ally look for­ward to read­ing?

Most im­por­tant is the dam­ag­ing por­trayal of “ir­re­spon­si­ble dads.” Our neo-fem­i­nist, pro­fes­sional women, in con­junc­tion with the sec­u­lar ju­di­cial sys­tem, many times have pre­vented chil­dren and fa­thers from hav­ing lov­ing re­la­tion­ships with each other. Just ask our re­turn­ing mil­i­tary fa­thers. I rec­om­mend readers go to fa­ther­sand­fam­i­ to see the suf­fer­ing these women have wrought.

In­stead of speak­ing about “do­mes­ti­cat­ing” men as though they were cat­tle and falsely paint­ing Amer­i­can men as “flee­ing fatherhood,” per­haps Ms. Fields could try to be a pos­i­tive in­flu­ence in this in­jus­tice and sup­port our providers and pro­tec­tors. THERESE STRINGFEL­LOW Green­belt

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.