What do you think?
Rate this book
The War Against Parents: What We Can Do for America's Beleaguered Moms and Dads – A Partnership to Restore Dignity and the Nation's Commitment to Children's Well-Being
Sylvia Ann Hewlett, a white feminist, and Cornel West, a black human rights activist, join in a rare partnership to address the burning social issue of our time: the abandonment of America's parents. A "brave and personal book" (New York Post), The War Against Parents calls for a Parents' bill of Rights that gives new dignity to the parental role and restores our nation's commitment to the well-being of children.
302 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1998
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
July 13, 2010
This was a really interesting read. West and Hewlett take EVERYONE to task for their role in the breakdown of American families--and I do mean everyone. Conservatives and liberals, secularists and religious folks, Republicans and Democrats, chauvinists and radical feminists, CPS and MTV. It was kind of refreshing to read something so free of a polarized agenda. I think pretty much everyone could find something to disagree with in this book (I sure did), which is kind of why I liked it so much. They're single-minded in their defense of prioritizing children's needs.
June 12, 2024
It’s interesting to read a policy book a quarter century after it was written. References to “current” policies of the Clinton administration carried to me the language of “contemporary American history” but ultimately showed how enduring and unchanging the problems covered by the authors have been.
Little has changed in the subsequent 25 years, little for the better. Families are stretched more thin, there are more single parent households, wages have remained stagnant, the popular outlook on marriage and family has seemed to have never been worse. Children and their parents seem to be worse off today than they were in the 90s. Tragically there has been no “AARP” for families, no mass movement of parental political energy.
That doesn’t mean that it can’t be done in the future. Bringing this essential concern to the forefront of the political psyche should be essential. Partly the issue is that the authors are batting at the wrong end of the political spectrum. Like Patrick Deneen pointed out, the right is far more open to coming to the center on economic issues than the left is on issues of culture and family. Unfortunately, these authors are exceptions. They are swimming upstream in a political world that is increasingly and openly anti-Natalist, anti-child, and anti-family.
They are no holds barred when it comes to the clawbacks on historic political incentives and changes to the tax code that actually punishes two parent households with children. Which is only fair. It’s preposterous that owning a horse is more financed by the government than caring for human beings. Punches are held back however when it comes to specific ways in which the sexual revolution and the emphasis on “cultural liberation” harms children and families.
Several instances their arguments would lead them to undermine their liberal principles but they assure the reader that even though two parent households are demonstrably best for all parties they don’t mean it in a “patriarchal way” or when it comes to the devastating impact of no fault divorce that they would never dream of reinstating the legal dignity of marriage.
Similarly, they assure the reader that abortion, divorce and contraception are simply divisive issues relegated to fundamentalist religious groups that need not be brought up. Despite fatherlessness, alienated men, unwed mothers, unplanned pregnancies, and more the issue is made not about the technological framework and legal framework that defines the family in our modern culture but the political and economic concerns that make such family life more difficult.
Not to say that it isn’t important but that it’s missing a key part of the story, namely the root of the rot.
Not to be too critical, when the plight of parents and families, which should be the center of our political efforts, is brought up as a value at all that is enough of a reason to celebrate.
Despite its shortcomings of vision and impossible goals, this outlines numerous excellent policy proposals and how through the past several decades the cultural and political climate has punished and disregarded parents in favor of special interests and profit.
Little has changed in the subsequent 25 years, little for the better. Families are stretched more thin, there are more single parent households, wages have remained stagnant, the popular outlook on marriage and family has seemed to have never been worse. Children and their parents seem to be worse off today than they were in the 90s. Tragically there has been no “AARP” for families, no mass movement of parental political energy.
That doesn’t mean that it can’t be done in the future. Bringing this essential concern to the forefront of the political psyche should be essential. Partly the issue is that the authors are batting at the wrong end of the political spectrum. Like Patrick Deneen pointed out, the right is far more open to coming to the center on economic issues than the left is on issues of culture and family. Unfortunately, these authors are exceptions. They are swimming upstream in a political world that is increasingly and openly anti-Natalist, anti-child, and anti-family.
They are no holds barred when it comes to the clawbacks on historic political incentives and changes to the tax code that actually punishes two parent households with children. Which is only fair. It’s preposterous that owning a horse is more financed by the government than caring for human beings. Punches are held back however when it comes to specific ways in which the sexual revolution and the emphasis on “cultural liberation” harms children and families.
Several instances their arguments would lead them to undermine their liberal principles but they assure the reader that even though two parent households are demonstrably best for all parties they don’t mean it in a “patriarchal way” or when it comes to the devastating impact of no fault divorce that they would never dream of reinstating the legal dignity of marriage.
Similarly, they assure the reader that abortion, divorce and contraception are simply divisive issues relegated to fundamentalist religious groups that need not be brought up. Despite fatherlessness, alienated men, unwed mothers, unplanned pregnancies, and more the issue is made not about the technological framework and legal framework that defines the family in our modern culture but the political and economic concerns that make such family life more difficult.
Not to say that it isn’t important but that it’s missing a key part of the story, namely the root of the rot.
Not to be too critical, when the plight of parents and families, which should be the center of our political efforts, is brought up as a value at all that is enough of a reason to celebrate.
Despite its shortcomings of vision and impossible goals, this outlines numerous excellent policy proposals and how through the past several decades the cultural and political climate has punished and disregarded parents in favor of special interests and profit.
January 31, 2017
You can use this book to fire yourself up before you attend a feisty school board meeting. Or you can just read it to make you want to crawl back in bed and hide under the covers. Either way, it offers a lot of its information in percentages, i.e. "90% of poor children don't get x, y and z" or "78% of working parents say they have a hard time meeting A B & C."
They describe how the GI Bill created a golden age for parents. Assistance with education and home loans was a great help for families. Unfortunately, a few societal changes have wiped out all the advantages those GIs enjoyed.
I was especially steamed by reading how companies lay off scads of people to boost their profits and stock prices, then give out-of-sight salaries and bonuses to their executives. In the same year. This is a most immoral practice, in my view.
Hewlett and West offer up a Parents' Bill of Rights, things like a living wage and parental leave.
It's a great set of ideas but, in the end, the authors fail to account for things like backlash and simple human will. For instance, we can compel companies to offer several weeks of paid parental leave, but what's to stop them from deciding to take their jobs offshore, where they don't have to fund such expensive measures?
Or, you can declare schools a drug-free zone, but there's always somebody who loves to be sneaky, carrying their drugs right past that drug-free zone sign.
Or, how about another idea of Hewlett and West's: unwed mothers should be "forced" to live with more experienced mothers, who will show them how to raise a child properly. Where are you going to find women who will rise to the occasion? I'm an experienced mother, and you don't see me stepping up.
They describe how the GI Bill created a golden age for parents. Assistance with education and home loans was a great help for families. Unfortunately, a few societal changes have wiped out all the advantages those GIs enjoyed.
I was especially steamed by reading how companies lay off scads of people to boost their profits and stock prices, then give out-of-sight salaries and bonuses to their executives. In the same year. This is a most immoral practice, in my view.
Hewlett and West offer up a Parents' Bill of Rights, things like a living wage and parental leave.
It's a great set of ideas but, in the end, the authors fail to account for things like backlash and simple human will. For instance, we can compel companies to offer several weeks of paid parental leave, but what's to stop them from deciding to take their jobs offshore, where they don't have to fund such expensive measures?
Or, you can declare schools a drug-free zone, but there's always somebody who loves to be sneaky, carrying their drugs right past that drug-free zone sign.
Or, how about another idea of Hewlett and West's: unwed mothers should be "forced" to live with more experienced mothers, who will show them how to raise a child properly. Where are you going to find women who will rise to the occasion? I'm an experienced mother, and you don't see me stepping up.
July 31, 2016
I read this book a long time ago, years before I became a parent (it came out in 1999, so probably around then). I was reminded of it today as I prepare for a (hopefully) short-term leave from my job as a public school teacher. My daughter, age 10, has a concussion, and after two weeks of juggling her care while she gets better at home, I have finally had enough and will stay home with her until she is completely recovered. As I made this decision, I am keenly aware of the many, many, many millions of parents in our country who cannot make this same choice, and who would lose their jobs--or their pay--if they were forced by circumstances to miss work to care for a sick child.
That's just fucked up. Why do we allow this to happen? Why don't we have paid leave for new parents? Sick days for all workers? Quality day care for those who work but who have young children? Health care for every kid in the nation? Free, or much cheaper, higher education? All the things we know lead to human thriving are beyond the reach of many people because of cost. I am far from a Big Government liberal, but I find it difficult to believe that we as a society couldn't do better than we are with regard to helping families keep their heads above water.
It's all so messed up, and while issues like this fester in the background, our nation is captivated by a discussion about Donald Trump's penis. We are doomed.
That's just fucked up. Why do we allow this to happen? Why don't we have paid leave for new parents? Sick days for all workers? Quality day care for those who work but who have young children? Health care for every kid in the nation? Free, or much cheaper, higher education? All the things we know lead to human thriving are beyond the reach of many people because of cost. I am far from a Big Government liberal, but I find it difficult to believe that we as a society couldn't do better than we are with regard to helping families keep their heads above water.
It's all so messed up, and while issues like this fester in the background, our nation is captivated by a discussion about Donald Trump's penis. We are doomed.
April 23, 2008
A bit unnerving in its exposure of structural causes of very personal difficulties, but as a sociologist, I was grateful to have this knowledge in my toolbox. Especially since I consider myself a potential parent with loads to learn.
December 27, 2008
What we are up against as Parents in the 21st Century. We have it much tougher than our parents. The government along with "Family Values" politicians have not been our side as much as they proclaim. Very important read!
December 17, 2010
Bitted and parted around in this book. Social policy is so very different in Canada, but had some interesting ideas.
December 10, 2022
Super depressing but informative read about the state of American families. However the authors comes to some harmful conclusions and recommendations about keeping abusive families and marriages together, since this predates all the narcissism content
January 27, 2015
Incisive analysis from Dr. Cornell West and Sylvia Ann Hewlett. good suggestions for activism at the end.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews