Murphy Brown Still Pisses Off Some Folks

The conspecifics astonished me today at lunch by announcing that Dan Quayle had been right about Murphy Brown. How so, asked I? She was a role model, and it was her obligation to set an example for the lower orders.

I reminded them that Murphy Brown was a fictional character, but they replied that the TV show sent a message in the “culture” that it was OK for unmarried women to reproduce. I pointed out that Murphy Brown was wealthy and perfectly capable of bringing up a child with every advantage, more so in fact than most couples of modest means. A child is generally better off in a two-parent family, they insisted, and poor women might see the show as validating bastardy in their case.

In a nutshell, a wealthy woman who wants a child (but who is not keen to marry) is supposed to forego motherhood as an example to poor women who can’t afford children on their own without husbands. By the same reasoning, I should not buy a stereo, because a poor person who can’t really afford one might try to acquire one based on my example. They might be tempted to rent a stereo and pay too much.

By this reasoning, I shouldn’t engage in any hobbies or consume anything beyond the bare necessities because I want to set an example for the poor.