The ladies worked earnestly to find positive roles for their hirsute colleagues, noting that men can be useful in family planning, child care sharing, working as part of a team. Although a man's presence was implicit in the hypothetical household, I waited futilely for emphasis to shift to the importance of fathers to their children's well-being. Father, it seems, has become the new F-bomb. Oh, we'll say "F#$&" in a 30-rock second, but "father"? The term, along with the concept, seems to have receded from popular usage, displaced by the vernacular of drive-by impregnators, the inane "baby daddy."
Women, indeed, may not need men, though they seem to want them — at least until the estrogen ebbs. Women have become more self-sufficient (a good thing) and, given that they still do the lion's share of housework and child rearing, why, really, should they invite a man to the clutter?
Because, simply, children need a father. That not all get a good one is no argument against what is true and irrevocable and everlasting. Deep in the marrow of every human child burbles a question far more profound than those currently occupying coffee klatches: Who is my daddy?
And sadly these days, where is he?
Kathleen Parker's email address is firstname.lastname@example.org.
- In our opinion: Boy Scouts of America and...
- Was Hillary right to compare Putin to Hitler?
- Sen. Ted Cruz opens 2014 CPAC with...
- My view: History lesson — 'Taking back'...
- Endangered Species Act lost sight of its mission
- Who are the real heroes of election reform?
- Letter: Religious freedom
- Robert J. Samuelson: Income tax has become a...
- Letter: Minimum Wage insufficient 66
- Has Obama's foreign policy emboldened... 62
- Jay Evensen: Obama could use a dose of... 60
- Letter: Religious freedom 52
- Obama's biggest test: Ukraine 33
- Sen. Ted Cruz opens 2014 CPAC with... 27
- In our opinion: Boy Scouts of America... 27
- Was Hillary right to compare Putin to... 26