Bluey, the Cultural Warrior: Guest Column

The New York Times complains about fathers who might be too good in popular cartoon.

Recently in The New York Timespop culture critic Amanda Hess argued that the immensely popular Australian children’s cartoon Bluey is problematic. According to Hess, the cartoon offers an over-idealistic portrayal of parenting, especially of fathers. Not only is Bluey’s puppy dad Bandit “a good father—he is a fantasy, one crafted to appeal to adults as much as to children.” Bandit seems “omnipresent” in the seven-minute episodes, Hess complains, too often playing with his daughters and doing housework. He “represents a parent freed of drudgery, one whose central responsibility is delighting his kids.” 

The reason why a positive portrayal of dads is a bad thing has something to do with what former President George W. Bush once called “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” Hess is not really arguing that cartoon dads shouldn’t be good dads, but if they are too good, then real-life dads might feel guilty and real-life kids with absent or abusive dads might feel worse. In other words, if everyone does not meet a high bar, we should lower it. 

In a strange sense, of course, Hess is making a case that dads matter. Craving a dad who is consistently present, attentive, and loving reflects something about who we are and what we need, whether we received it or not.  We have that craving because it is built into the fabric of reality. We may wish and often repeat that men and women are interchangeable, and therefore, moms and dads are too. But our own hearts say otherwise. 

In fact, social science data routinely confirms how important dads are for the health and well-being of children. Kids who grow up without a dad at home are three times more likely to engage in criminal activity, more likely to engage in sexual activity earlier, less likely to go to collegemore likely to have emotional and behavioral problems, more likely to struggle academically, and are twice as likely to commit suicide. As author and Professor Nancy Pearcey recently wrote, the best predictor that a child will hold on to their Christian faith into adulthood is if their dad held on to his faith and nurtured a close bond with his kids. 

None of this means, of course, that children who grow up with an absent or abusive dad are doomed to failure, or that children who grow up with faithful, attentive fathers are guaranteed success. However, if we do know instinctively and empirically how important dads are, shouldn’t we hope for more good fathers to be modeled in the media and elsewhere, rather than fewer? 

In an episode of Bluey called “Hospital,” Bluey and her sister pretend to perform surgery on their dad. As is characteristic of the show, a few jokes are clearly aimed at the parents watching. At one point, Bandit asks pleadingly if there is another game they could play in which he could just lie on the couch and do nothing.

This endearing example isn’t one of perfect fathering that Hess is complaining about, but it is quite realistic and perhaps reveals the real “problem” with this particular cartoon dad: He doesn’t treat his children like objects or status symbols or constant irritants, as items on a bucket list, or as obstacles to freedom, prosperity, and autonomy. As my friend and kids’ rights advocate Katy Faust puts it, we think of kids as means to serve adult desires, rather than as ends in and of themselves, whose needs and wellbeing should be put first.  

According to Hess, the problem with Bluey is that it never portrays the “drudgery” of parenthood, peddling instead some irrational idea that a parent should delight his kids. In Hess’s critique, it’s not possible for a dad to feel annoyed, bored, and pulled in too many directions but still choose to play goofy games like “hospital” because he knows, at some level, just how consequential his love, time, and attention is for his kids. In fact, it’s more than possible that the ratio of annoyance to life-long importance is outrageously lopsided. It’s not only possible, it’s essential because only a dad can be a dad. 

For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to breakpoint.org. 

Copyright 2024 by the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. Reprinted from BreakPoint.org with permission.

Congressman Westerman Joins Brief Opposing Biden Administration’s Pro-Abortion Overreach

On Tuesday U.S. Congressman Bruce Westerman (AR — 04) joined 120 other congressmen and U.S. senators in an amicus brief opposing the Biden Administration’s federal pro-abortion overreach.

The amicus brief is part of a U.S. Supreme Court case over the Biden Administration’s recent attempts to require emergency rooms to perform abortions under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). Family Council joined a similar amicus brief in the case on Monday.

EMTALA is a decades old law signed by President Ronald Reagan. It is designed to ensure people are able to receive emergency care even if they are unable to pay.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently issued a letter and guidance reinterpreting EMTALA to require doctors and hospitals to perform abortions or transfer the woman to another facility for an abortion when necessary to protect the life or health of the mother — even if the abortion would be illegal under state law.

Health exceptions for abortion are notoriously vague and can actually permit abortion on demand in many cases. That’s why states like Arkansas limit abortion to situations where the mother’s life is at risk instead of using a broader “health” exception. Forcing states to make “health” exceptions for abortion under EMTALA poses a serious problem.

In a statement to Family Council, Congressman Westerman said,

“The Biden Administration’s recent guidance on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act was not made with the best interests of mothers in mind, and rather is a political loophole to allow more abortions. The original intent of the EMTALA is to protect patients and protect the lives of mothers and children, the law itself has no mention of abortion. The issue of Idaho’s Defense of Life Act is consistent with the original guidance of EMTALA, and I look forward to the Supreme Court reviewing this case and setting the record straight.”

The Biden Administration simply has no business reinterpreting federal law to turn emergency rooms into abortion facilities. Family Council appreciates Congressman Westerman and his colleagues taking a stand against this pro-abortion agenda.

You can read the amicus brief here.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

Family Council Joins Pro-Life Amicus Brief Before U.S. Supreme Court

On Monday Family Council joined more than 30 other individuals and organizations in an amicus brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Moyle v. United States.

The amicus brief is part of a lawsuit over the Biden Administration’s effort to turn emergency rooms into abortion facilities via the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).

EMTALA is a decades old law signed by President Ronald Reagan. It is designed to ensure people are able to receive emergency care even if they are unable to pay.

After the U.S. Supreme Court released its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision overturning Roe v. Wade, President Biden issued an executive order urging the Secretary of Health and Human Services to identify ways to use federal authority to expand abortion.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a letter and guidance instructing doctors and hospitals that EMTALA requires them to perform abortions as a “stabilizing treatment” or transfer the woman to another facility for an abortion if they determine that doing so is necessary to protect the life or health of the mother — even if the abortion would be illegal under state law.

Health exceptions in abortion laws are notoriously vague and can actually permit abortion on demand in many cases. That’s why states like Arkansas limit abortion to situations where the mother’s life is at risk instead of using a broader “health” exception.

However, the Biden Administration’s letter to doctors and hospitals last year specifically says, “And when a state law prohibits abortion and does not include an exception for the life and health of the pregnant person — or draws the exception more narrowly than EMTALA’s emergency medical condition definition — that state law is preempted [overridden by the federal government].”

In Moyle v. United States of America, the Biden Administration is attempting to use this new interpretation of EMTALA to force E.R. doctors in other states to perform abortions that might be illegal under state pro-life laws. The amicus brief we joined in the case argues that the federal government is unlawfully intruding into state law.

The Biden Administration simply has no business trying to overrule state pro-life laws or turn emergency rooms into abortion facilities. If the Biden Administration wins in this case, it could try to push the same abortion agenda in other states—including Arkansas.

Family Council is pleased to join with other pro-life groups in standing for life and pushing back against abortion in our country.

You Can Read the Amicus Brief Here.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.