An Infectious Smile

When I was a teenager, Artie B. was my best friend.  Nevertheless, Artie and I could not have been more different.  I was a good student; Artie was not.  I was also a straight arrow, whereas he was a little bent.  Although Artie possessed a good heart, he was a bit of a rogue.

Most of the time, I was a goodie-two-shoes, but when I was with Artie, we occasionally broke the rules.  I did not worry, however, because Artie had a knack for getting us out of trouble.  Even when we got caught red-handed, he always had a ready excuse.

But Artie had more than that; he had an infectious smile.  (Back in Brooklyn, we called it a s---eating grin.)  Whenever we were trapped, he would turn on the charm and adults would melt.  No matter how improbable the tale he told, somehow they were convinced.

With me, it never worked that way.  If I tried that with my father, he would scowl and demand that I “wipe that smirk of [my] face.”  If I did not, he would promise to wipe it off for me.

But why am I reminiscing about this?  It is because Barack Obama recently flashed the same sort of grin as Artie.  Moreover, he achieves pretty much the same results.  Onlookers give him a free pass no matter how big the whopper he tells.

Not long ago at a press conference, Obama was asked why he did not make himself more available to the press.  He declared that he wanted to, but that his people would not let him.  And then, he grinned.  And everyone chuckled.  They all knew he was fibbing, but hey, what was the big deal?

Although this incident might be dismissed as “teasing,” other instances are more serious.  Thus, Obama flashed the same grin when caught lying about whether Americans could keep their doctors under Obamacare.  He did the same when he asserted that there was not a smidgeon of corruption at the IRS.

Nowadays, he is repeating the process with respect to the Iran treaty.  When others criticize it, he proclaims that they are trying to mislead the American people.  And then he grins.  Then his audience smiles and applauds.  In the midst of being misled, they reward him for doing so.

Obama often likes to pretend that he is the only adult in the room, so how is it that he gets away with a teenage ploy?  Why do so many Americans respond the way adults did to Artie?

Part of the reason is that Barack is indeed charming.  He has an undeniably appealing way about him.  Another is that as our first minority president, people do not want him to fail.  They would rather close their eyes to reality than allow him to be exposed as a disappointment.

Bill Clinton also had an endearing aw-shucks grin.  He could get caught having sex with an intern in the oval office and have this written off as if it were a boyish prank.  George W. Bush, of course, could not.  His smile was forced, i.e., it was anything but contagious.

As for Hillary, her smile is so phony that even her friends make excuses for it.  She may yet be elected president, but it will not be because she is likeable.  Her partisans, as did those of Richard Nixon, will vote for what she symbolizes, not who she is.

The point is that if we want a competent adult in the White House, we must behave like competent adults.  We cannot allow ourselves to be seduced by appearances, whether these come packaged as a captivating smile or a symbolic achievement.

I once wondered what adults saw in Artie.  Why did they permit themselves to be hoodwinked?  Nonetheless, there was little at stake.  When it comes to the presidency, however, our safety and way of life are on the line.  We don’t need to elect amiable teenagers or ideological icons.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Men Must Be Mensches

Both my wife and my female students often tell me that I am too hard on women.  Whenever I insist that women must be discouraged from having children out of wedlock, they remind me that men have something to do with this as well.

Obviously, they are right.  It takes two to conceive.  But they miss an important point.  Only women get pregnant.  This places a heavier burden on them.  Although this is unfair, this injustice has been imposed on them by nature.

Nonetheless, men must not be let off the hook.  We cannot treat those who seduce numerous women as heroes.  If they leave their seed behind without a trace of remorse, they are scoundrels.  Far from being super-masculine, they do not even qualify as genuine men.

Males who father children, but do not stick around to help raise them are thugs.  They are no better than muggers who grab a woman’s purse and then flee into the darkness.  At best, they are children who play at being men.

Yiddish has a word for what is needed.  The term in “mensch.”  While literally translated as “man,” it means much more.  A mensch is responsible.  He (or she) is a stand up person.  A mensch is someone who can be counted upon to do the right thing in a pinch.

Today’s drive-by-fathers are anything but.  Often unable—or unwilling—to hold a job, they refuse to support their wives and children.  Typically too selfish and immature to make sacrifices for others, they are more concerned with their momentary pleasures.

Such persons do not warrant respect.  They should be pitied and scorned rather than admired.  We ought to get furious at their depredations.  Instead of shrugging our shoulders at the human damage they leave behind, we should at least censure them.

But we must do more.  Some feminists castigate virtually all men as potential rapists.  They also dismiss husbands and fathers as useless appendages.  Because men tend to be more aggressive than women, males are condemned as abusers and misanthropes.

This is a serious mistake.  Male aggressiveness can be tamed.  When it is controlled, it can be turned to positive effect.  Responsibly aggressive men protect their homes and families.  Responsibly aggressive men build huge corporations and send rockets to the moon.

The question is, therefore, how do we convert irresponsible wastrels into trustworthy adults.  A great deal of time and money has been devoted to encouraging women to be assertive.  As much as been dedicated to teaching women the skills needed to compete with men in the marketplace.

Men, on the other hand, are regarded as “privileged.”  Not only are they not helped; they are frequently burdened with requirements designed to slow them down.  Most do not get affirmative action; they get quotas and legal procedures that prevent them from defending against charges of sexual misconduct.

Where are the classes to teach angry young men how to be winners?  Oh, yes they get training on how not to get angry.  But where is the training on how to convert their anger into economic success?

Poor men, the ones who are most likely to become absentee fathers, really get a raw deal.  Deprived of the physical jobs that once enabled them to support their families, they struggle to keep out of jail.  Unqualified for employment above the minimum wage, they find no work at all.

So how do we help them?  Not by giving them more welfare.  That would only make them dependent prodigals.  Nor by instructing the police to give their rage free rein.  That only sustains their criminality.

We can begin with honesty.  Men who have been deprived of their traditional roles have a right to be angry.  But they do not have a right to be destructive.  Their reign of familial terror must stop.  Yet they also need an outlet for their energy.  So let us teach them to be mensches.  The basic material is there.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

An Epidemic

Jeb Bush froze.  Like a deer caught in the headlights, he did not know how to respond.  No, this was not about the Iraq War.  It was about unwed motherhood.  Like most politicians, this was a subject he had learned to avoid.

Two decades ago, Bush wrote that we as a nation must stop tolerating out-of-wedlock births.  These were so damaging to the young that we needed to stand up and denounce sexual carelessness.  The consequences of non-marital parenthood were too severe for us to remain silent.

Recently, however, when confronted with these words, Jeb backed down.  Now he had come to realize that these mothers were heroic.  They ought not be criticized because the job they were doing was tough enough.  Why make it worse by burdening them with guilt?

Not long thereafter a well know conservative commentator observed that Bush’s original position was too harsh.  Just because a woman happened to find herself raising children on her own was no reason to condemn her.  She was indeed valiant.

Yet this is Alice Through the Looking Glass stuff.  It turns the world backwards.  Unwed mothers do not just “happen” to find themselves raising children.  They do not wake up one morning to discover that these youngsters are magically there.  They have done something to make this happen.

Nowadays, more than forty percent of American children are born out of wedlock.  Meanwhile, more than seventy percent of Black children are.  This is not an accident; it is an epidemic.  It is a full-blown catastrophe.

If a disease had wiped out more than a third of all fathers, we would be in a state of national panic.  The question would not be whether should we do something, but what we should do?

Part of the reason we have been slow to respond is what Marvin Olasky called “the tragedy of American compassion.”  We do not want to hurt women who may already be suffering.  We certainly do not want to harm their innocent children.  Hence we do nothing and make the problem worse.

Consider Jeb’s plight.  As a politician, he cannot afford to alienate too many voters.  Because so many of them are unwed parents, or the children of unwed parents, or the friends and relatives of unwed parents, he fears a backlash.  If he is too candid, these folks, together with sympathetic liberals, may never forgive him.

Besides, the politicians haven’t the foggiest idea of how to stem the tide.  Tax credits, enhanced welfare, and birth control education have not done the trick; hence they do not know what else to try.

Nor are the churches much help.  Although many preach abstinence, their pews are empty of those who should hear the message.  In too many places, people are more afraid of being ridiculed by their neighbors than of going to hell for their sins.

Nor do all churches respond with reasonable recommendations.  One mega-church, I have been informed, has a rule that single women and married men are not allowed to be in the same room alone.  Do its ministers fear that the congregation has so little self-discipline promiscuity and infidelity occur whenever the chance arises?

As for the media, they are shameless.  Their masters will do anything for ratings.  As they happily tell us, they are not in the morality business.  Nonetheless, why should they be in the anti-morality business?

How ought we, as a society, respond to this orgy of irresponsibility?  Not, I am afraid, by being prudes.  Demanding total abstinence in a world where marriage is frequently postponed to the late twenties, and beyond, is unrealistic.  People will not comply.

But we can be honest!  We can make sure that everyone is aware of the dreadful implications of unwed parenthood for the very young.  We can also insist that people be careful.  Accidental pregnancies should no more be condoned than are drunk-driving accidents.  It is time for us, in our own interest, to sober up!

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State Univerisity