On Flagging Single Mothers

Dear All,

I think It is wrong of Marion O' Callaghan to suggest that at least some sort of flagging should not be apportioned to children of single mothers. Given the evidence of several respected magazines and research journals over the years, it is clearly sinister to both the child and the society for an ill-equipped immature parent to attempt the herculean task of properly rearing a human child on his or her own.

Offspring rearing for all animals takes some time and effort. Tigers teach their cubs to hunt. Birds must learn to fly. It takes time and is risky, requiring all possible parental vigilance and conscientiousness for the best chances of success. Human beings are arguably the most difficult animals to rear. They are born with exactly what other animals are born with: the instinct to eat, to express distress, to exert violence in the interest of survival, to seek comfort and affection, and pleasure, and one thing more: to derive meaning from said activities.

It is this last instinct: to derive meaning from activities performed, which most separates man from animals and which the failure to do exposes mankind in general to all the worst possible unnecessary ills. It is a monumental task to teach a child, especially in this generation, how to derive substantial meaning from an industrious, productive life, given the not-so-positive messages of political victimhood, sexual precocity and promiscuity, us-versus-them gangster violence, general pop anti-intellectual culture which sneers at the development of the mind as 'geeky' and 'plodding'. The only parents who have the luxury of not fighting this octopus-like foe are the Amish and very reclusive homeschoolers. Children are built to mimic what happens and is modeled in their environments...and not only what elders tell them...to derive meaning from their activities, and therefore, choose which ones to perfect, dwell upon, and live by.

A single mother has less power than two parents would to manage and control their own affairs in addition to the affairs of the child. She has less total time, less total energy, and less money. Her raising a child alone is a liability not only to the child but to herself and the society at large. This is a claim borne out by fact-based information easily discoverable in the annals of sociological (especially prison and juvenile delinquent) research institutions worldwide. Marion O' Callaghan also suggests this by mentioning that in earlier times the children of the most successful were raised by nannies and governesses, suggesting that division of labour was recognized as necessary for the best instruction of the child and perhaps the best functioning of the parents, who also have their lives to do justice to.

Although these arguments may seem selfish, childish and shallow, to me they are profoundly simple. People must confront reality, admit their limitations. There are limitations to what you can do for yourself and your own talents, once you have a child and no other support; and often children are inspired by the success and emotional health of their parents, rather than their constant presence. There are limitations to what the society can do to protect itself once you have undertaken to be such a parent, especially since you are quite likely to fail, in this age of such unhealthy media cultureand ineffective schools.

While the schools and educators must take their blame, pointing fingers at their ineptitude should not be allowed to replace a vigorous discouragement of the phenomenon of inappropriate single parents left to half-rear people. They do indirectly cause those half-reared as well as others to die at the point of said single-parent-reared bandits' guns, for instance. A good leader can take steps to fix an education system. Not one can fix a bullet-ridden skull. And it is much cheaper and more cost-effective to simply let the direct source of the risk-- the single mother and her sexual partner-- be aware of exactly what the nature of that risk is, and let them bear much of the cost, socially, psychologically, and reproductively.

Women will think twice about having sex, if they know that their tubes may be forcibly tied if they are found to be pregnant and jobless or husbandless, more than a certain number of times. Men will think twice about having sex, if they know their tubes may also be forcibly vasectomized if they are found to be notorious 'village rams'. And the work of teachers and educators will be immensely easier when parents are made to understand their profound responsibility from the moment of conception, and even before, when they are choosing sexual partners or spouses.

Responsibility must be made known to the parent in whatever way possible. It does not mean a curse or discrimination upon them; it means recognition of costs! Just like in taking out a loan you must provide and surrender your collateral, would-be parents must be made, at however tender an age, to recognize just how much it costs society to deal with half-reared children after the fact. I truly don't think they now do. Individuals in society must realize that there are many benefits to living in it rather than in a hermitage, and take responsibility for helping that society to thrive, rather than burdening it in the many ways, including single parenthood, that it is possible to do so.

In today's article, Marion O' Callaghan makes mention of the McShine example. I don't know why, but it seems to me that extremely successful children of single parents are a sight more likely to be the exception than the rule; and I don't see in this case (single motherhood) how the exception undermines the purported (single-motherhoood-bad) rule. Also, she forgets that in Victorian times, although such mothers as the fictitious Fantine (Les Miserables) and Agnes Fleming (Oliver Twist) suffered unspeakably in their unwed condition, those states were not at all overburdened with very real young mothers now literally living off, quite boldy and parasitically, the State's conscientious tax-paid provision for them. The costs of child rearing must be counted and made known, however inhumane it may seem to do so, so that the culture of entitlement does not further poison the minds of those who already follow the precocious sex-kitten sex-god example.

I do not believe that single motherhood is a total bane. I think it depends upon the mother and the environment in which the child lives. No untrained immature single mother today can fight against a negative neighbourhood, a relentless landlord, BET, MTV, and the Gaza/Gully 'coolness' that has recently invaded Sangre Grande hospital. If she is single in Westmoorings, with four participating grandparents, and a spider's web of articulate, affluent and educated aunts and uncles, maybe she has a chance to fight for that child against the media's pressures. If she is single in Laventille, maybe not so much, so let's flag and put pressure on the responsible parties! This is a quite legitimate view, which may lead to less of us getting killed over the next thirty years. The Nordic countries' culture is completely different to that of the Caribbean...single motherhood there is buttressed by those salubrious aspects of their culture which I'm sure we find ourselves without. Many of us can propose culture changes for Trinidad. But we would probably be laughed out of town by the vote-hungry leaders and the masses who would basically say: Everyone has rights to choose the culture they want. But I know something they can't laugh at: no one has a right to my life.

I'd rather be discriminating and have my life than be undiscriminating and get killed. Most (more than 50%) of those hired guns do not have both parents; most (more than 50%) of those bad-boys killing as part of their initiation rites do not have well-educated parents. It's not classism or racism; I'm almost sure it's just a fact. And people have the right to their lives, whatever the rights of others to reproduce. Don't you think? I don't want to be one of the next 500. And I very well could be. So could Marion O' Callaghan. So whatever it takes to deal with it, and the fastest possible means, let's do it. Up with the flags.

On America's Promise-- a response to Mystic Melange

First, let me say that I am angry. I am angry because all the (American) media I have been exposed to from childhood has told me that I can be anything I want to be, once I work hard enough and smart enough. I could rise from rags to riches, once someone saw my talent; I could be pushed from the gutter to the gold. And it was a bald-faced lie. I am angry at them for telling it. I am angry at myself for believing it.

Here is what the (American) media (in the form of Walt Disney movies, Hanna-Barbara cartoons, Buena Vista and Lorimar Television, and others) did NOT tell me from childhood: You cannot be anything you want to be, even if you work extremely hard and extremely smart, unless you are born in the right place, to the right parents...or someone wants to single-handedly function as they would.

Malcolm Gladwell, an American with Jamaican roots, makes this point abundantly clear in his ground-breaking book "Outliers", which details the many areas of human life in which excellence flourishes, from Canadian ice hockey players to East Asian mathematics whizzes to the Beatles. He makes an unassailable argument that it is not only the WHO but also the WHERE and the WHEN that matters, not MOST, but EVERY time greatness is achieved, whether by a child or by an adult.

However,the (American) media does not say so. They leave that to the immigration lawmakers and officials. They are the ones who tell those of us with dreams of making it to Broadway or some other institution unavailable in the lands of our birth, "Come back when you have money," "Come back when you have a sponsor," "Come back when you have a spouse", "Come back when you have a full-time employer willing to sponsor your application", "Come back when you have parents or guardians who are rich enough to pay for your application, or to support you while you stay in our country,". These words never get told to the thousands of less talented, less motivated natives of the country, simply because they happened to have been BORN there.

An accident of birth does NOT constitute merit or worth. This is plain for most Americans to see when the issues of Affirmative Action or racism come up. But they become suddenly blinded when the issue crosses the ocean. "I have a right to take full advantage of the opportunities that exist in the world" applies suddenly, only to those born in a particular country, only to those born to a certain cross-section of non-local people, able or willing to command a certain amount of financial resources and support.

This makes me angry. My view is that I should not have to marry someone to take advantage of the Lion King auditions (I could not audition for Broadway without a green card); I should not have to work a nine-to-five when creative performance is my calling, because only well-established creative performance managers can afford to pay $5000 for an HB1 visa application; I should not have to make oodles of money from my talent FIRST in order to get a green card (a pass to compete for talent jobs) on the basis of Extraordinary Ability. For a country which so poignantly thwarts me and many others truly talented, yet offers succour and opportunity to those far less so, in reality shows and elsewhere, on the principle of an accident of birth, I shall not develop goosebumps while listening to its anthem.

What is more, it is clearly inconsistent that a person should claim to consider political will such as Rosa Parks', admirable, while not having any such will herself: will to stand in front of the Red House conducting a hunger strike; will to assemble mutinously in front of Mr. Manning's residence, will to refuse to work or to wear red when the political unions call for a strike, will to vote, even as a national abroad, against the political system, will to make clear the case for a despot-watch by the UN in Trinidad and Tobago. It is clearly inconsistent that both successful emigres and second-generation Americans state that those who remain in Third World countries should nation-build, while they enjoy the fruits of others' nation building, and leave us to an ever more difficult task in their absence. It is clearly inconsistent that they should, Pilate-like, wash their hands of their countries as soon as they have grasped the opportunity promised them via their chosen calling.

I smile, because I note the humour in the irony in these inconsistencies. And I have vented, so I am no longer angry. But I will find a way to make my siege. Serenely.