Do you know why we have marriage as an institution? Do you know why in Philippine succession laws, illegitimate children are entitled to a lesser amount of inheritance compared to legitimate children?
Because the policy ingrained in our laws prefer that children be born to married couples. We encourage people to marry and we discourage them from separating (hence our strict annulment laws). We also discourage people from giving birth to children outside of marriage (hence there are plenty of laws that discriminate against illegitimate children and incentivizes their parents to lift the discrimination by legitimizing the children through subsequent marriage). In short, we do not want B@stards. Or more particularly, we do not want to become a society of Bast@rds.
Why?
This goes to the very nature of the two-parent household or the modern nuclear family as the basic foundation of society. The family is the vessel wherein the next generation of citizens will be procreated and raised. The kind of families the country has will also determine the kind of citizenry that the nation will have. Kung ano ang puno, yun din ang bunga. We used to teach this in grade school. Unfortunately, we now take this for granted and just dismiss the amazing institution of the nuclear family as a product of the dreaded patriarchy.
Why the bias for legitimate children?
Because statistics have shown that children raised by single parents are more likely to grow poor, more likely to become victims of abuse, more likely to become drug addicts and criminals, and more likely to become teen-parents themselves compared to children raised in two-parent households.
Barack Obama himself, the deity of leftist progressivism, once admitted:
children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-in-this-case/
Its common sense. In parenting, four hands are better than two. Mas maraming kumakayod, mas maalwan ang buhay. Mas maraming nag-aalaga sa anak, mas hayahay ang paglaki.
Of course, we can always cite stories of children raised by single parents who grew up to become successful individuals. But those are just anecdotal evidence. For every success story we find, there are four or five others who fail at being single-parents. Statistics matter.
So what is the problem if our next generation of citizens are mostly raised by single parents?
Wed likely have to increase taxes so we can pay for the welfare, schooling and healthcare of the multitude of poor bast@rds, and wed also likely run out of prisons to house the multitude of bast@rds who will soon turn to life of crime. Not to mention, our economy and society would be a lot better off if the people were raised nicely by two parents.
So yes, two-parent households headed by married couples is the model we should uphold.
In the past, how does society guard against the proliferation of bast@rd children?
We are not Muslims and none of us believe that people committing adultery deserve to be flogged or stoned to death for their indiscretions. And I strongly advocate against that. So what was our alternative?
Aside from our laws encouraging marriage and discouraging out-of-wedlock births, we also practice SOCIAL SHAMING. And it used to be very effective.
Social shaming is as old as our civilization. We gossip about our neighbors who had pre-marital sex and got pregnant. We say wag kang gagaya don sa pinsan mo, nagpa-kuwan sa kasintahan niya hindi pa sila kasal, ayan nadisgrasya, nakakahiya. We shun friends and relatives who fail at this basic social rule of getting married first before having sex or before having children. Thus, single-parenthood is discouraged and society is kept safe and healthy from the proliferation of bast@rds.
And no one can claim that this practice is misogynistic. For every negative gossip against loose women, society also reserves an equally damning taunt to the male party. Ay naku, yang pinsan mo walang B@yag, tinakasan ang pananagutan niya, ayaw pakasalan ang kasintahang nadisgrasya niya, walang paninindigan, hindi tunay na lalake.
However, lately, it has become increasingly difficult to openly practice social shaming. Womens groups will pounce on you, they will call you a xenophobe, a bigot, a misogynist. They will require you to attend re-education camps called gender sensitivity seminars. The old gossipy, moralistic busy-bodies of the past are now replaced by leftist, politically-correct advocates in the internet, workplace and academe. And while the moral busy-bodies of the past actually served a useful function of keeping society upright, the militant leftist advocates today serve no purpose other than to destroy what our society has always stood for.
To illustrate the radical shift in narrative, I just read today a showbiz feature in the Philippine Star glorifying Aiko Melendez and Teresa Loyzaga as single-parents-by-choice.
That is how far gone we have slipped. We now give social points to women who choose to deprive their children of the privilege of growing up with their fathers. These women are not the role models we want to present to our young children.
So when I heard Sen. Tito Sottos remark during his interview of Judy Taguiwalo, I honestly got amused at this old-school Senator who was courageously trying to show Generation Z how the good old social shaming was done. Yes it is courageous in the face of the leftist regressive politically correct atmosphere we have today.
Granted, his remarks were too in your face. Our culture does not like direct confrontation. In the past, people prefer to gossip behind your back. You will just realize that the whole neighborhood is already talking about you and telling their children not to follow your example.
However, I understand Sen. Tito Sottos point. Its time to rise above the hysteria and face up to the truth. WE DONT WANT TO BECOME A SOCIETY OF B@STARDS. WE WANT CHILDREN RAISED BY STRONG TWO-PARENT HOUSEHOLDS. THAT IS THE WAY TO GO. TRADITIONAL VALUES FOLKS. That is all.
Because the policy ingrained in our laws prefer that children be born to married couples. We encourage people to marry and we discourage them from separating (hence our strict annulment laws). We also discourage people from giving birth to children outside of marriage (hence there are plenty of laws that discriminate against illegitimate children and incentivizes their parents to lift the discrimination by legitimizing the children through subsequent marriage). In short, we do not want B@stards. Or more particularly, we do not want to become a society of Bast@rds.
Why?
This goes to the very nature of the two-parent household or the modern nuclear family as the basic foundation of society. The family is the vessel wherein the next generation of citizens will be procreated and raised. The kind of families the country has will also determine the kind of citizenry that the nation will have. Kung ano ang puno, yun din ang bunga. We used to teach this in grade school. Unfortunately, we now take this for granted and just dismiss the amazing institution of the nuclear family as a product of the dreaded patriarchy.
Why the bias for legitimate children?
Because statistics have shown that children raised by single parents are more likely to grow poor, more likely to become victims of abuse, more likely to become drug addicts and criminals, and more likely to become teen-parents themselves compared to children raised in two-parent households.
Barack Obama himself, the deity of leftist progressivism, once admitted:
children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-in-this-case/
Its common sense. In parenting, four hands are better than two. Mas maraming kumakayod, mas maalwan ang buhay. Mas maraming nag-aalaga sa anak, mas hayahay ang paglaki.
Of course, we can always cite stories of children raised by single parents who grew up to become successful individuals. But those are just anecdotal evidence. For every success story we find, there are four or five others who fail at being single-parents. Statistics matter.
So what is the problem if our next generation of citizens are mostly raised by single parents?
Wed likely have to increase taxes so we can pay for the welfare, schooling and healthcare of the multitude of poor bast@rds, and wed also likely run out of prisons to house the multitude of bast@rds who will soon turn to life of crime. Not to mention, our economy and society would be a lot better off if the people were raised nicely by two parents.
So yes, two-parent households headed by married couples is the model we should uphold.
In the past, how does society guard against the proliferation of bast@rd children?
We are not Muslims and none of us believe that people committing adultery deserve to be flogged or stoned to death for their indiscretions. And I strongly advocate against that. So what was our alternative?
Aside from our laws encouraging marriage and discouraging out-of-wedlock births, we also practice SOCIAL SHAMING. And it used to be very effective.
Social shaming is as old as our civilization. We gossip about our neighbors who had pre-marital sex and got pregnant. We say wag kang gagaya don sa pinsan mo, nagpa-kuwan sa kasintahan niya hindi pa sila kasal, ayan nadisgrasya, nakakahiya. We shun friends and relatives who fail at this basic social rule of getting married first before having sex or before having children. Thus, single-parenthood is discouraged and society is kept safe and healthy from the proliferation of bast@rds.
And no one can claim that this practice is misogynistic. For every negative gossip against loose women, society also reserves an equally damning taunt to the male party. Ay naku, yang pinsan mo walang B@yag, tinakasan ang pananagutan niya, ayaw pakasalan ang kasintahang nadisgrasya niya, walang paninindigan, hindi tunay na lalake.
However, lately, it has become increasingly difficult to openly practice social shaming. Womens groups will pounce on you, they will call you a xenophobe, a bigot, a misogynist. They will require you to attend re-education camps called gender sensitivity seminars. The old gossipy, moralistic busy-bodies of the past are now replaced by leftist, politically-correct advocates in the internet, workplace and academe. And while the moral busy-bodies of the past actually served a useful function of keeping society upright, the militant leftist advocates today serve no purpose other than to destroy what our society has always stood for.
To illustrate the radical shift in narrative, I just read today a showbiz feature in the Philippine Star glorifying Aiko Melendez and Teresa Loyzaga as single-parents-by-choice.
That is how far gone we have slipped. We now give social points to women who choose to deprive their children of the privilege of growing up with their fathers. These women are not the role models we want to present to our young children.
So when I heard Sen. Tito Sottos remark during his interview of Judy Taguiwalo, I honestly got amused at this old-school Senator who was courageously trying to show Generation Z how the good old social shaming was done. Yes it is courageous in the face of the leftist regressive politically correct atmosphere we have today.
Granted, his remarks were too in your face. Our culture does not like direct confrontation. In the past, people prefer to gossip behind your back. You will just realize that the whole neighborhood is already talking about you and telling their children not to follow your example.
However, I understand Sen. Tito Sottos point. Its time to rise above the hysteria and face up to the truth. WE DONT WANT TO BECOME A SOCIETY OF B@STARDS. WE WANT CHILDREN RAISED BY STRONG TWO-PARENT HOUSEHOLDS. THAT IS THE WAY TO GO. TRADITIONAL VALUES FOLKS. That is all.