Popular (Progressive) Fatherless Myths

Luxury Beliefs: (The Uncritical Acceptance of Current Intersectional Queer and Feminist Theories)

In the second part of my series on Popular (Progressive) Fatherless Myths, I presented the idea that these myths are widely accepted among American culture-shapers due to the influence of Luxury Beliefs, which is "an idea or opinion that confers status on members of the upper class at little cost while inflicting costs on persons in lower classes." I elaborated on merging utilitarian ethics with expressive individualism, which is a key factor in the prevalence of Luxury Beliefs in America.

The Uncritical Acceptance of Current Intersectional Queer and Feminist Theories¹² is another factor that contributes to the ascendence of luxury beliefs about Fatherlessness and the role of Fathers among the educated class of America. Rob Henderson illustrated the concept of Luxury Beliefs when he wrote about a fellow Yale student who insisted that Monogamy was old-fashioned, even though she planned to practice it in her own life.³

Throughout the world, Monogamy is widely recognized as the predominant social norm. In the United States, the two-parent family monogamous relationship is considered a key indicator of economic stability and success and a viable pathway for the poor and disadvantaged to achieve upward mobility.⁴ When talking to former UTM students who became fathers after engaging in multiple sexual relationships, it was clear that they all expressed a profound sense of regret. They reflected on how their past non-monogamous lifestyles adversely affected their lives and families.

 While each man did not regret having their children, they found themselves navigating the challenging reality of two decades of substantial child support payments and overcoming the daunting challenges of being a non-resident father. It significantly delayed their path towards upward economic mobility, often leaving them feeling frustrated that they cannot fully support, love, and be present for their children with their children as they wish, especially given the complexity of their circumstances.

Although Polyamorous and Promiscuous relationships did not begin with Queer Theory and various Feminist Theories, some Intersectional Scholars seek to deconstruct the normativity of Monogamy. One of the foundational texts of Queer Theory, "Rethinking Sex, a provocative essay written by feminist anthropologist Gayle Ruby back in 1984, highlights the distinction between anti-normative and normative through her Sex Hierarchy circle.⁵

Ruby perceives the charmed circle list of "Good, Normal, Natural, Blessed Sexuality" as an oppressive power structure that privileges itself over the "Bad, Abnormal, Abnormal, Damned" outer limits list of sexuality. She argues for the complete removal of boundaries between what is considered good and evil in terms of sexuality, including the distinctions between monogamy, promiscuity, and polyamory.

Moreover, some intersectional theorists aim to deconstruct the concept of the nuclear family. In my research on modern family systems through peer-reviewed journals, I repeatedly came across the term "Heteronormativity" and expressions such as "family equality," "family privilege," and "family justice," as discussed by social scientists and family scholars.⁶

Describing themselves as operating within an intersectional feminist, queer, and whiteness theory framework, these scholars argue that privileging the traditional two-parent Husband-Wife family causes societal injustices and inequalities among marginalized communities. They seek to demonstrate that the nuclear family is toxic and should be dismantled as it is rooted in a white heteropatriarchal nuclear structure of families and the idea of "marriage fundamentalism" behind it.⁷⁸

So, what is meant by Marriage Fundamentalism? "Marriage Fundamentalism is defined as "the idea that a family composed of a man and a woman in their first marriage is "the best" or "ideal" type of family, especially for children."⁹ Using “the fundamentalist pejorative card” to broad-brush those who desire to conserve the traditional idea of marriage and family, these progressive family scholars and anti-traditional family policy advocates disparage those that they call “marriage fundamentalists,” especially conservative Christians who promote the traditional family as best and ideal in American Society.

One self-described critical feminist family scholar, Bethany Letiecq, who labels traditional family advocates as "marriage fundamentalists" goes out of her way to consistently misrepresenting conservative Christians and organizations and frame them in the worst possible light. Through the practice of relying on secondary sources, Letiecq links conservative Christians who believe in traditional marriage to "white Christian fundamentalism and patriarchal politics," which wields male authority to restrict women to "tending the home and nurturing children," that also "blame, denigrate, and demonize individuals." Letiecq notes that some of these individuals come from black female-headed single-parent households, which the marriage fundamentalists have no problem punishing "people unwilling or unable to conform to heteropatriarchal nuclear family structures to the margins of society, deeming them inferior, deviant, or a significant threat to the social order" because they were influenced or hold similar views to Charles Murray.¹⁰

At the same time, the existence of conservative Christians and groups embracing and promoting one or more of these toxic distortions of the traditional family is undeniable and has been detrimental to women. Today, figures such as Douglas Wilson and his far-right religious empire in Moscow, Idaho, and past figures such as Bill Gothard and the Institute of Basic Life Principles have caused significant harm to families and perpetuated abuse and inequality among women. The rise of social media has only amplified Wilson's reach, making it critical to condemn his and his followers' sexism and racism whenever it's publicly trending.

Yet relying on hasty generalizations, appeals to emotion, cherry-picking, and guilt-by-association informal fallacies has created a misleading strawman that masquerades as a peer-reviewed journal article. This piece, along with several others, fails to accurately represent the views of those of us who promote traditional family structures and marriage as the best and most ideal options. They often overlook the reality that conservative Christians—individuals, businesses, and foundations—are among the most generous social groups in America. They contribute financially and as volunteers to hundreds of thousands of non-profits and churches across the United States. These organizations build supportive and loving relationships with the poor, disadvantaged individuals, single mothers, and fatherless children of all ethnicities and racial backgrounds, providing immediate assistance while supporting long-term economic and social stability and empowerment through stabilizing the family and Christian community development.

However, I’ve come to realize that intersectional queer/feminist scholars, anti-traditional family policy advocates, and family abolitionists have selective amnesia when it comes to “family justice.” In all their talk of the harmful effects of heteronormativity in society, they often overlook the indispensable role of the father in a child's life, dismissing his significant, positive impact on the child’s development. Fatherlessness was conspicuously absent in any of these discussions among the critical family scholars, progressive family policy advocates, and family abolitionists. If raised, they would have to confront the reality that many non-traditional, alternative families they are promoting do not include the biological father. They haven’t come to terms with the fact that family structures that exclude the father and lead to fatherlessness directly harm children. Period. Fatherlessness is a Family Justice issue, perhaps the most pressing one at that.

Rob Henderson, in his poignant newsletter this past Father’s Day, wrote about how he reflected on the impact of growing up fatherless in a poor white community where fatherlessness was rampant.¹¹ He had no idea of the sharp deficiency growing up without a father until he entered the Air Force and met several men who spoke highly of their father's influence on their lives, often quoting them regularly. He then drops a word-phrase bomb and declares:

Not Having A Father Is It’s Own Tax on Life

I have since marinated on that phrase for this summer. Interestingly, on one of the days that I reread this article, I spent a Saturday in the summer binging on several Robin Hood movies in a row. We are all familiar with the captivating legend of Robin Hood. A returning nobleman from the Crusades, he challenges the unjust and tyrannical rule inflicted by the Sheriff of Nottingham and King John upon the people of Nottingham and all of England. King John and the Sheriff ruthlessly levy oppressive taxes on the impoverished and common folk of the land without providing any relief. This crushes the poor and working class and inflicts little or no cost on the Barons and wealthy class.

While the progressive, educated elites and culture-shapers may see themselves as Robin Hood-type heroes who champion the poor, the disadvantaged, and the working class, their luxury beliefs about morally relativistic family structures have the opposite effect. Instead, they have much more in common with the Barons and the Noble class, complicit with the wealthy ruling class whose luxury beliefs are leveraging the fatherless with their own tax on life.

The law of the unintended consequences from luxury beliefs that traditional family structures "do more harm than good and that fathers are somehow optional" has wreaked havoc in urban neighborhoods like mine. It's more than just a life-long tax; rather, it's an "evil scheme that destroys the poor with lies, even when the plea of the needy is just." (Isa 32:7)

Click Here for “Popular (Progressive) Myths About Fatherlessness in Our Culture, Part 1.

Click Here for “Popular (Progressive) Myths About Fatherlessness in Our Culture, Part 2

1. Queer Theory is the critical field of study that emerged in the 1980s and 90's that challenges norms related to gender and sexuality.

2. Doucet, Andrea, and Robyn Lee. 2015. “Fathering, Feminism(S), Gender, and Sexualities: Connections, Tensions, and New Pathways in Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6 (4) , 2014.” Academia.edu. March 2015. https://www.academia.edu/11183300/Fathering_Feminism_s_Gender_and_Sexualities_Connections_Tensions_and_New_Pathways_in_Journal_of_Family_Theory_and_Review_6_4_2014.‌According to Doucet and Lee: “Feminist theories were initially viewed in categories such as liberal feminism, socialist feminist, and radical feminism (see Jaggar, 1990), but the past two decades have seen a move toward greater complexity, diversity, and specificity. Through the development of a wide array of intersectionality theories, attention has been given to multiple differences among women, such as race, class, ability, sexualities, and the interactions of different forms of oppression (Andersen & Collins, 1992/2012; Choo & Ferree, 2010; Collins, 2000, 2004; McCall, 2005). At the same time, feminist theoretical entanglements with poststructuralism, queer theories, transnational feminist theories, and a burgeoning field of new feminist materialisms have offered systemic deconstructions of gender, the sex–gender binary, and sexualities.”

3. Henderson, Rob. 2024. Troubled: A Memoir of Foster Care, Family, and Social Class. Simon and Schuster.

4. Kearney, Melissa S. 2023. The Two-Parent Privilege. University of Chicago Press.

5. Rubin, Gayles S. 1993. Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality. In The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader, edited by H. Abelove, M. A. Barale and D. M. Halperin. NY: Routledge

6. Bala, Nicholas, and Christine Ashbourne. n.d. “Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law the Widening Concept of Parent in Canada: Step- Parents, Same-Sex Partners, & Parents by ART.” https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1577&context=jgspl&httpsredir=1&referer=.

7. Letiecq, Bethany L. 2024. “Theorizing White Heteropatriarchal Supremacy, Marriage Fundamentalism, and the Mechanisms That Maintain Family Inequality.” Journal of Marriage and the Family/Journal of Marriage and Family, February. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12971. Letiecq defines Marriage Fundamentalism as “the belief that a family composed of a cisgender heterosexual married couple (i.e., a man and a woman as husband and wife) is the ideal family form for rearing children, is the foundation of civilization, and is necessary for ensuring White, heteropatriarchal supremacy in America.”

8. Van der Toorn, Jojanneke, Ruthie Pliskin, and Thekla Morgenroth. 2020. “Not Quite over the Rainbow: The Unrelenting and Insidious Nature of Heteronormative Ideology.” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 34 (34): 160–65. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352154620300383.

9. “Marriage Fundamentalism Embracing Family Justice for All.” n.d. Accessed August 20, 2024. https://familystoryproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Case-Against-Marriage-Fundamentalism_Family-Story-Report_040419.pdf.

10. Letiecq, Bethany L. 2024. “Theorizing White Heteropatriarchal Supremacy, Marriage Fundamentalism, and the Mechanisms That Maintain Family Inequality.” Journal of Marriage and the Family/Journal of Marriage and Family, February. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12971.

11. Henderson, Rob. 2024. “A Tax on Life.” Robkhenderson.com. Rob Henderson’s Newsletter. June 16, 2024. https://www.robkhenderson.com/p/a-tax-on-life.