Ok. I feel obligated to say something about the tiff between Jennifer Aniston and Bill O'Reilly. I hate to acknowledge these sorts of things with a response, but here goes...
If you haven't heard, Aniston was promoting her new film about a woman becoming a single mom, and she said, "Women are realizing more and more that you dont have to settle, they dont have to fiddle with a man to have that child."
To this, Bill O'Reilly, on his show, responded that Aniston is "throwing a message out to 12-year-olds and 13-year-olds that, Hey! You dont need a guy, you dont need a dad. Daaaaad? Aggghhhh, you know!' Thats destructive to our society! Aniston can hire a battery of people to help her, but she cannot hire a dad, okay?"
To this, Aniston responded, "Of course, the ideal scenario for parenting is obviously two parents of a mature age. Parenting is one of the hardest jobs on earth. And, of course, many women dream of finding Prince Charming (with fatherly instincts), but for those whove not yet found their Bill OReilly, Im just glad science has provided a few other options."
Aniston's last response was actually pretty good up until the point she talks about the "other options" that science has provided. Well, guess what? Those "other options" are the ones that intentionally place children in father-absent homes. And that is the problem. Aniston may not need a man, but that does not mean that the child does not need a father. Just look at the data.
So, even though she acknowledges that two parents is best, she tolerates something less than the best for a child? That doesn't really make sense. Should I be confused?
All in all, this is what NFI has to say about the notion that fathers are not necessary. We published this op-ed on CNN.com on Father's Day.
If you haven't heard, Aniston was promoting her new film about a woman becoming a single mom, and she said, "Women are realizing more and more that you dont have to settle, they dont have to fiddle with a man to have that child."
To this, Bill O'Reilly, on his show, responded that Aniston is "throwing a message out to 12-year-olds and 13-year-olds that, Hey! You dont need a guy, you dont need a dad. Daaaaad? Aggghhhh, you know!' Thats destructive to our society! Aniston can hire a battery of people to help her, but she cannot hire a dad, okay?"
To this, Aniston responded, "Of course, the ideal scenario for parenting is obviously two parents of a mature age. Parenting is one of the hardest jobs on earth. And, of course, many women dream of finding Prince Charming (with fatherly instincts), but for those whove not yet found their Bill OReilly, Im just glad science has provided a few other options."
Aniston's last response was actually pretty good up until the point she talks about the "other options" that science has provided. Well, guess what? Those "other options" are the ones that intentionally place children in father-absent homes. And that is the problem. Aniston may not need a man, but that does not mean that the child does not need a father. Just look at the data.
So, even though she acknowledges that two parents is best, she tolerates something less than the best for a child? That doesn't really make sense. Should I be confused?
All in all, this is what NFI has to say about the notion that fathers are not necessary. We published this op-ed on CNN.com on Father's Day.
