Fathers

First published in Column Eight on the 10^th June, 1992

Why a nation should elect a man and then ridicule him endlessly I’m not sure, though admittedly the behaviour of some of our own elected reps should give me pause for thought.

The man I’m talking about is Dan Quayle. I know Mr Quayle is the butt of every joke that’s going in the States, which either should make us pause before listening to him, or make us listen very carefully. A couple of weeks ago, however, in some remarks he made, he hit the nail on the head.

Amongst other things, he took the television programme Murphy Brown to task for its attitude to fatherhood. That was probably a pretty rash thing to do, given that Murphy Brown (for some reason) is the flavour of the month. I suppose Mr Quayle is used to being considered rash, so a bit more rash behaviour scarcely matters.

I haven’t seen the episode in question – no doubt it will now arrive here with bells ringing – but I agree with Mr Quayle’s view that anything further that mocks fatherhood is only taking the nation away from, not towards, improvement.

Murphy Brown’s female producer made Dan’s remarks an excuse for bringing safe abortion into the argument, which was not what he’d been saying. Nor was he saying that a woman cannot bring up a child on her own. Plenty of women have had to, and their children have mostly survived.

The point he was making, and which the produce seems to have chosen to ignore, was that where fathers are lacking in a society, for whatever reason (war, work, or negligence), that society will have problems.

I know (yes, I know) there’s a big backlash against patriarchal societies. In other words, when the men hold the sway of power, and women are delegated to so-called feminine tasks and opportunities. I agree that societies where all the choices and all the chances are made by one sex (be it men or women) will be a lopsided society.

But the point I’m making (and so, I think, was Mr Quayle) is that fathers are extremely important to the upbringing and emotional welfare of children. As important as mothers.

We have a poverty-stricken picture of what fatherhood is really like, because fatherhood has been debased. And if at first it was debased by men, now it is being debased by women.

I can understand the backlash against fathers, and men, because of the slack way a large number of them have behaved over decades – perhaps centuries. Even worse, the way women in this generation have been left to bring up kids on their own is a disaster.

But to imply, therefore, that father are only useful for bringing children into the world in the first place, and for little else, is more than a short-sighted view. We’re reaping the fruit of that view in the coming generation, in gangs, in more violent rapes, in worse and worse abuse, and in young people utterly embittered by the neglect of fathers.

Denigrating fatherhood because of the flaws of poor fathers is like questioning the value of education because of illiterate failures.

I am convinced that every child needs two parents to grow up balanced. Growing up with only one parent is to grow up with narrowed view of emotion, thought, sexuality, discipline. it is to grow up without any appreciation of the intimate interaction of two parents who have chosen to live and love together, and to do it to the best of their ability.

Two parents provide breadth, and two parents provide live role models for children of both sexes, not just one. Two parents will seldom be perfect, but to me they will always be preferable.

Courtesy: Gage Skidmore, Peoria, AZ

This is an interesting piece: correct in regard to the disintegration of society that takes place when fathers are absent, or mocked as caregivers. But it’s odd, looking at it now, that I didn’t mention the fact that I was brought up without a father, and did pretty well overall. I do know there have been things lacking in my life that have left me with a kind of hole emotionally in some areas. But I perhaps should have given my own mother more credit for the work she did in bringing me up than the brief sentence at the end of paragraph five.

There’s an article from 2012 which confirms what Mr Quayle had said – Twenty Years Later, it Turns Out that Dan Quayle was Right About Murphy Brown and Unmarried Moms. This is only one of a number of articles that came either ten or twenty years later affirming Quayle’s position.

 AI summed up the controversy in this way on 25th March, 2026:

In May 1992, U.S. Vice President Dan Quayle criticized the fictional TV character Murphy Brown for becoming a single mother, arguing her choice to raise a child without a father mocked the importance of fatherhood. This sparked a major culture war debate over "family values," unmarried parenting, and media influence during the 1992 presidential campaign. 

Key Aspects of the Controversy:

• The Criticism: In a speech at the Commonwealth Club of California, Quayle stated that "bearing babies irresponsibly is simply wrong" and attacked the sitcom for portraying single parenthood as a "lifestyle choice".
• Context: Quayle was targeting the season finale where Candice Bergen’s character, Murphy Brown, gave birth to a child after her ex-husband decided not to stay, framing this as a deliberate rejection of traditional, two-parent families.
• "Family Values" Debate: The incident was part of a larger Republican effort to focus on "family values," highlighting what they saw as the negative influence of Hollywood on social structures.
• Reaction: The show, along with many in the media and liberal commentators, responded strongly, with show creator Diane English suggesting that if the administration opposed single parenthood, they should support comprehensive, safe, and legal abortion.
• Show's Response: The 1992 season premiere incorporated the comments, with the characters mocking Quayle's attack. The fictional newsroom defended the complexity of the choice and highlighted the support system for single parents, as seen in this YouTube video. 

Legacy:

• The incident is considered a defining moment in early 1990s culture wars, highlighting the intersection of politics and entertainment.
• While initially widely mocked, some commentators later argued that the decline in traditional family structures made Quayle's point about the role of fathers increasingly relevant in the following decades, as explored by the Brookings Institution.
• Quayle maintained years later that he did not regret the criticism, telling CBS News in 2002 that it was important to advocate for two-parent households.