Because apart from that, no problem!
The baby daddy is now as integral a part of American culture as transgenderism, or college safe spaces, or the breakup/move-out. There’s not a thing wrong with it!
Except: If there’s not a thing wrong with it, then why is it racist to depict a black man in the role? Maybe because there really is something wrong with it, and everyone knows it, but racism is about the only thing anyone’s allowed to be judgmental about anymore.
As if that wasn’t absurd enough, the card isn’t even intended for real baby daddies!
“We appreciate the feedback and apologize,” Target wrote on Twitter. “It’s never our intent to offend any of our guests with the products we sell.”
The retailer was alerted about the card last week and is removing the card from its stores.
American Greetings, which manufactured the card, also issued an apology.
“This particular card was created for, and addressed to, a loving husband — which the inside copy makes clear,” American Greetings said in a statement. “However, we now see that the front page, taken out of context, can communicate an unintentional meaning that we are strongly against perpetuating and is not consistent with our company purpose and values. We should do better in the future, and we will. We have notified our store merchandisers to remove the card from the shelves and apologize for any offense we’ve caused.”
The term “baby daddy” typically refers to someone who is the father of a woman’s child but is not her husband or partner.
Ah yes, the ubiquitous “partner” nod. We’ve dealt with that before.
Anyway, the explanation from American Greetings is hilarious. You mean to tell me greeting card companies never give any thought to how the cover alone might come across absent the context of the inside, and just now did so for the first time because of this?
But I’m still trying to get my head around why this is controversial. Is it because society objects to children being born out wedlock? If so, good, but when did that happen? Or are unmarried baby daddies perfectly fine, but not depict as black people because they’re . . . not perfectly fine?
Or are they perfectly fine, but still racist to depict as black because uptight social scolds like me think they’re bad?
Then again, maybe the issue isn’t that clear cut and no one thinks it needs to be. It’s probably just the usual combination of images, words and someone getting up in arms about it – without it really equating to a serious problem. Not much that people get wigged out about these days can be described as serious.
Thanks for reading, but don’t leave yet! The only way we raise money to keep this site operating is by selling you books, which you can find in the column to the right of this one – along with summaries and links to order signed hard-copies or digital downloads. We will never charge for the content here, but by all means, check out these books! They’re gritty and challenging spiritual warfare stories that will probably surprise you, and they’ll keep us knee-deep in Tiger tickets and Caffeine-Free Diet Coke!