Wednesday, April 21, 2010

"Middle-class" Welfare Queens

Over at Alternet, they posted an article about a "middle-class" single mother named Nan Mooney complaining about the fact that if her state cuts daycare subsidies, her artificial middle-class existence will cease to exist. Of course, since she's on a form of welfare (her subsidized daycare) she is not middle-class, but is just a lower-class person pretending to be middle-class thanks to the government (kind of like black affirmative action workers) or grew up middle-class but made low-class decisions and is being bailed out by the government.

This article exemplifies all that is wrong with America - from the welfare dependency, to the fatherless children and the sense of entitlement people like Mooney have.

One Thursday morning last month I took a break from my job as a journalist and freelance writer and, after dropping off my 2-year-old at his subsidized daycare, drove myself and my 10-week-old daughter across town to a cupcake shop. Our mission? To decorate Cupcake-grams that momsrising.org, a national non-profit that targets family and children's issues, planned to deliver to every last member of the Washington State legislature along with a note about the critical importance of early childhood care and learning.

I didn't do this just for the fun or the frosting. I did it because my livelihood was at stake.

Washington State had threatened deep budget cuts in a number of areas, including slicing $30 million from the Working Connections Childcare program that helped to fund my childcare. I'm a single parent. I work hard to support my family of three but I don't make anywhere near enough to pay the $2,000-plus a month I'd need to put two kids in full-time daycare. Working Connections gives me the freedom to work and therefore feed, clothe and house my children. If it goes, I'm screwed.

Note that there is no mention of a father or husband. Indeed, she fails to mention him at all in the article. Perhaps she should have thought about the difficulties of raising three children before she decided to become a career woman with three kids. True, the father (probably fathers) of her children might not pay much in child support, could be incapacitated or dead, and might have abandoned her and her children. However, if that was the case, she probably would have mentioned it to gain the sympathy of her reader. She would have appeared as a hardworking woman who fell on tough times rather than being a dumb slut who bit off more than she could chew.

Single career women with kids don't need a husband, remember? They are strong and independent women. Well, not quite independent, since they essentially use Big Government as a surrogate husband.

If she loses the subsidies, she says she will be screwed. Good. If more single mothers like her end up poor, maybe women will realize that both choosing to be a single mother and trying to live a middle class existence is impossible without some form of external support.

Though the cupcake protest may be an original spin on things, our merry band of frosters was far from alone. In Buffalo (childcare subsidies eliminated for four in 10 children), in Chicago (proposed $150 million cuts in human services, among them childcare), in Brooklyn (15 daycare centers slated to close in July) and in California (proposed cut of 18,000 childcare spaces), protesters are hitting the phone lines and the streets because they recognize something the legislators and the mainstream media seem to have missed: Child care really matters.

Due to the recession, tax revenues are down. Legislators can either 1) raise taxes or 2) cut spending. Even the Democrats aren't stupid enough to significantly raise taxes during a recession and take more money from the very people who provide others with jobs. That leaves spending cuts, which no government agency is immune to right now. Even police departments are receiving funding cuts.

For the majority of today's families, child care is an expensive but all too necessary fact of life. In 1975, nearly half of families with children consisted of a male breadwinner and a female homemaker. Today, only one in five families still embody that traditional set-up. In fact mothers are now primary breadwinners--making as much or more than their spouse or filling the role of single working parent --in nearly four in 10 families. And as more mothers flood the workplace, families have to shoulder the often dizzying costs of finding someone else to watch their kids. Getting help with childcare isn't an added perk like a parking space in the company garage. It's a lynchpin, one that can affect healthy child development, job security and the frayed economic realities of today's low-income families.

In other words, liberals destroyed traditional America and are shocked at their results. Congratulations, you destroyed the family wage and made it impossible to support a middle-class family on one income, turned women into sluts, and turned men from being beta providers to being gaming pseudo-alphas and basement dwellers. Everything has a consequence. Liberalism is essentially an ideology that seeks to ignore consequences.

Also, she used the word "lynchpin" on Alternet. I'm surprised the editors allowed it, because it contains the word "lynch," which they probably think is a racist word (like "looter").

People need to appreciate that funding quality child are isn't just a work support issue, it's also a child development issue," says Danielle Ewen, the director of childcare and early learning at the Center for Law and Social Policy. "If we don't invest in early childhood care and learning, kids will arrive at school unprepared to learn. It will affect the number of children with special needs. It will affect graduation rates. It goes to the heart of what our public education system is all about."

For years, kids started elementary school at six or seven years old and they did well. America became the most powerful nation in the world without having kids start school when they were two or three. It sounds like Ewen is just another one of those liberal "experts" who wants to destroy childhood. Thirteen years of liberal indoctrination must not be enough.

For many of us, childcare subsidies play a critical role in the economic infrastructure, bridging the gap to provide a service as essential as food or housing. About 30 percent of all low-income families using child care centers, and 16 percent using an in-home care giver receive subsidies, about 14 percent of those who are federally eligible. Not only do such subsidies ensure that parents can work, they also place those children in healthy environments focused on development and learning. If subsidies disappear, many low-income families are forced into an impossible situation in which their income is less than the cost of paying someone to watch their child.
Once again, liberals fail to realize that actions have consequences. If these "low-income families" (liberal code words for "single black women and their brood of bastards with different fathers") can't support their spawn, then they should not engage in sex. Pretty much everyone other than pre-contact Australian aborigines and young children understands the relationship between sex and women having babies. It really is not a difficult concept.

It's a lifesaver," says Francine Almash, a Brooklyn resident and single parent who relies on subsidies to pay for daycare for her three children. Almash, who works as a freelance editor and splits her time between telecommuting and going in to the office, pays $5 a week to send her kids to a city-funded daycare center near her home. "Without the subsidies I'd have to pay a minimum of about $2,100 a month, even to put my kids in a city-funded daycare. There's no way I could possibly afford that. It's almost my entire income."
No liberal article demanding the government to spend money on something would be complete without a sob story.

Francine Almash is raising three kids in New York City while making around $25,000. She could at least move to a city with a lower cost of living. But that would involve "personal responsibility," a concept that is an anathema to liberals. What a dumb bitch.

When asked what she would do if her subsidy were cut, there's a long silence.

I don't know," Almash finally says. "I really don't know. Maybe I could try to keep one kid home? I'd probably just have to quit working and go on public assistance."
Perhaps Almash should have thought about this before she decided to raise three children as a single mother in New York City - not exactly a cheap place to live - while working as an editor. It's interesting to note that the author of this piece is also a single mother journalist. I wonder why so many single mothers are writers? If they are supporting a family on one income, they should probably

For families like Almash's, the loss of childcare subsidies would be devastating. The subsequent scramble for any kind of care, let alone a licensed quality provider, would force them to play fast and loose with their children's well-being.
In other words, they will have to deal with the consequences off their actions. This is what adults do.

"There are issues of child development and child safety at stake," says Heather Boushey, a senior economist with the Center for American Progress. "Without subsidies, more kids will wind up in unstable care situations that the parents are managing day to day. They may be shuffled around to friends or relatives or even be left home alone to take care of themselves."
There's another solution: single, career women shouldn't have bastard children. And if they do decide to have children, get married first so someone can watch the kid. As for kids having to be home alone, I understand the concern about younger kids, but once kids are of a certain age (say 9 or 10) is it really that big of a deal to have them walk home from school and stay home alone for an hour and a half until their mom comes come?
For many, the juggling required to grapple with suboptimal childcare can lead to taking days off work, arriving late and leaving early. As a result, parents risk losing those same jobs subsidies are meant to help facilitate. In addition, cuts in childcare dollars mean that childcare workers, many of whom are women and many of whom are single parents, now face having their hours cut or their jobs eliminated.

"In part, we see childcare subsidies as a job program," Boushey says. "Without reliable childcare, many low-income parents are forced into a position where they are less consistent on the job because they are dealing with childcare-related issues. They risk losing jobs and losing promotions. And in a tight job market like we have now, driving people out of the workplace is the last thing we want to be doing."

A more effective job program would be to slash the welfare/warfare state, abolish the income and capital gains tax, and allow wealthy people and small businessmen to create jobs. Also, expelling all illegal immigrants and many legal immigrants would help, too. That would be a far more effective job program than providing single women with an incentive to pop out bastards. It would also be a lot better for society than subsidizing the increase in the number of criminals and teen pregnancies that result from single motherhood.

What also seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle is how much such cuts could potentially cost individual states and the country as a whole. If I lost my daycare subsidy I would have to turn to food stamps, Medicaid, temporary assistance for needy families, Section 8, and every other social service out there to support my zero-income family. I would wind up the kind of financial burden no one's looking to take on these days. In addition, every child who doesn't get what they need in terms of early childhood care and learning risks costing the system more down the line in the form of behavioral problems or poor school performance.
If she would end up on welfare if she lost her daycare subsidy, she really isn't living a middle-class existence as she claims. She is living one artificially created with taxpayer dollars.

Also, due to the fact that her children are being raised by a single mother, they already are likely to have behavioral problems and poor school performance.

"Childcare faces a serious threat right now," says Ewen. "The short-term implications of the recession are very bad. We could see states making tremendous cuts, particularly once the stimulus money expires. The hard truth is that we can't make any reforms without resources. We know what we need to do -- develop a system in which the highest quality care is available to the widest range of families. Now it's a question of finding the means to do it."

The Obama administration seems committed to early childhood care and learning, pledging an additional $1.6 billion toward the Child Care and Development Block Grant in fiscal year 2011 (a pledge that still has to make it through Congress). Advocates hit a major stumbling block when the Early Learning Challenge Grant --$8 billion stretched across eight years targeted for education and learning for children from birth to age 5 --wasn't included in the final health care bill passed by the Senate. Now it's up to Congress to allocate more money to the states and also to states to put their own resources on the table.

Naturally, Obama and the Democrats will step in and further subsidize the destruction of the family with stolen money.


We can only hope they see the bigger issues at stake. Investing in childcare means investing in the future of our children and our education system, in job growth and creation.
She becomes very Orwellian in this sentence and the following ones.

By "investing" in childcare, she really means "take money from hardworking people via taxes and give it to single women." That is not investing, it is taking money from the people who invest.
It isn't a handout.
...

If this isn't a handout, then what is?

It's a crucial step toward helping individuals to help themselves.
No, it leads to the exact opposite. When someone gets $2000 a month from the government, as Mooney appears to, this does not cause them to take care of themselves. If they took care of themselves, that money would go way and they would have to pay $2000 a month out of their own pocket, so there is no incentive to help themselves. People realize they do not need to take care of themselves because the government will do it better than they can. This is one of the problems with welfare and why it is so destructive.

If Mooney wanted to take care of herself, she should have either not gotten pregnant or got married to the father of her children. Or she could have exercised this "choice" that feminists are always clamoring about.

Nan Mooney is the author of "(Not) Keeping Up with Our Parents" (Beacon, 2008). Read more about the book and her work at Nan Mooney.com.
Perhaps if Mooney is poor enough that her middle-class existence is endangered, she should find a more lucrative job than writing progressive political books for a non-profit organization (Beacon Press is run by a Unitarian group). And the reason why we are "not keeping up with our parents" is because liberals like her destroyed the society that our parents lived in, though I'm sure in her book she blames it on Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

I hate single mothers. I really do. I don't hate widows or mothers whose husbands/boyfriends turn out to be deadbeats, criminals, or otherwise worthless, but I hate single women who decide to have children knowing there will be no father in their children's lives and then expect everyone else (via government taxation) to pay for their decisions. Not only do I hate ghetto black welfare queens running around with their brood of five misbehaving nigglets, but I also hate "middle-class" white career women like this who have fatherless children and whine about the price of daycare (and the fact that school hours don't work well with office hours, that their employer won't give them time off to see their kids' school plays, etc.).

Nan Mooney is an embodiment of everything wrong with America.

27 comments:

  1. "...I also hate "middle-class" white career women like this who have fatherless children and whine about the price of daycare..."

    Don't forget how they also constantly go around bragging about how "they are 'strong' and 'independent', and 'don't need a man'" one moment, then are whining and complaining that "there are no good men around anymore", the next.

    As a man who was treated like less than dirt all through my teens and twenties by the same type of women (who are now like these), I get an unending sense of delighted satisfaction when I read articles like these. Now in my 50's, never married (and never gonna be!), and comfortably well-off, I thank the Gods that the women I knew rejected me and treated me like they did -- living well IS the best revenge!

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's "linchpin", anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As the son of a single mother: Fuck you, you ignorant racist misogynistic selfish privileged hateful asshole.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I second what Souza said.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If Mr. Souza and company believe that single mothers and their children ought to be subsidized, then let us see him put his money where his mouth is: he can cut a monthly check to any number of single mothers so that they can place their children in child care and thus live that Murphy Brown lifestyle to which they believe themselves accustomed. Of course, Mr. Souza would have to lower his own lifestyle, as $2000 a month is a sizable chunk of cash, but since he believes that the rights of single mothers negate the rights of taxpayers to keep their own money, he can not object.


    As the son of a single mother: F*ck you, you ignorant racist misogynistic selfish privileged hateful *ssh*l*.


    You left out "sexist" and "homophobic" and "ageist" and ... oh my ... did I leave out any more cliches?

    One of the things which has convinced me that liberalism is politically bankrupt is that its followers can no longer put together rational arguments. All they can do is call people names. If Flyover Libertarian is wrong, then let us see the critics demonstrate on a point by point basis where his arguments do not hold water.

    The fact is that taxpayers are forced by the government to subsidize the irresponsible choices of other people.

    The fact is, blacks do have an incredibly high illegitimacy rate (70% is the usually quoted figure, about three times the rate of White people).

    The fact is that women do have choices when it comes to pregnancy: to abstain from sex, to use birth control, to get an abortion. Or simply to get married first.

    Women have been "liberated" for a couple of generations now (putting aside the fact that they have had the vote for a century). We can see the choices that women make, especially "women of color:" and that is to engage in unsafe sex, produce large numbers of illegitimate children, and then expect the taxpayers to pick up the bill.

    Liberals told us that safe and legal birth control would end the problem of illegitimacy. Meanwhile, the Sexual Revolution would free up people to make intelligent choices about sexual partners. We can see the results in the real world: an explosion of STDs, an explosion of illegitimacy, and an explosion of broken marriages. Despite the destructiveness of liberal ideas when applied to the real world, they are still promoted by every major institution of society: media, universities, and government.

    Why this is so ought to be a topic for national debate. One can not simply discount the impact of ideology here: liberalism, no matter how disastrous it proves itself to be in reality, still holds sway over the minds of the faithful.

    On a more practical level, the Sexual Revolution, by destroying the family, undermines an institution which opposes the unchecked growth of the liberal state. Single mothers require the creation and maintenance of massive liberal bureaucracies: child care, child support, child protection, "violence against women," and the rest of the liberal boondoggles (remember, it's all done "for the children"). All those things which once might have been the province of the family are now executed by the New Class of professional bureaucrats and social engineers.

    It's all part of the revolution against the middle class.

    (One should check out paleo-con Sam Francis on this number, he has a very incisive analysis of this sort of thing,)

    ReplyDelete
  6. "If Mr. Souza and company believe that single mothers and their children ought to be subsidized,"

    Did I say that? No. Whether I agree with that or not has nothing to do with whether someone who flat-out says he hates my mother (when he knows shit-all about her) is an asshole.

    "then let us see him put his money where his mouth is: he can cut a monthly check to any number of single mothers so that they can place their children in child care and thus live that Murphy Brown lifestyle to which they believe themselves accustomed."

    "Murphy Brown lifestyle?" Dude, you are woefully uninformed on what the lives of most single mother families on welfare are like. We barely get by, and that's while we're working.

    "Of course, Mr. Souza would have to lower his own lifestyle,"

    Did you even read the part where I said I was the son of a single mother? "Lowering my own lifestyle" would basically require becoming homeless at this point.

    "as $2000 a month is a sizable chunk of cash, but since he believes that the rights of single mothers negate the rights of taxpayers to keep their own money, he can not object."

    This makes no sense. Neither you, nor anyone else is paying $2000 in taxes a month toward single mothers. Also, if taxpayers had the right to keep all of their own money, guess what? They wouldn't be taxpayers!

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Murphy Brown lifestyle?" Dude, you are woefully uninformed on what the lives of most single mother families on welfare are like. We barely get by, and that's while we're working.

    I was, of course, referring to the lives of the women described in the article who have reasonably white collar types of jobs and lives.

    But all this gets back to Flyover Libertarian's initial point: that these women (for the most part) made choices about their lives, and now they and their children are suffering the consequences of those choices.

    There are several solutions here, and the children of single mothers might want to consider them if they do not want to end up following in marginal lives:

    Abstain from sex.
    Use birth control.
    Get an abortion.
    Get married.

    Why is this so hard to understand?

    Really?

    Incredible as it may sounds, there re tens of millions who do any or all of the above. The problems of single mothers/illegitimacy could be solved in a generation if the above steps were followed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Incredible as it may sounds, there re tens of millions who do any or all of the above. The problems of single mothers/illegitimacy could be solved in a generation if the above steps were followed.

    And I mangled the second to last sentence. Should be:

    "Incredible as it may sound, there are tens of millions who do any or all of the above."

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Abstain from sex."

    Do you practice abstinence?

    "Use birth control."

    Sometimes it doesn't work.

    "Get an abortion."

    I doubt you would dare to suggest this to any woman in person. It's a pretty touchy issue.

    "Get married."

    Not an option for many women, for tons of obvious reasons.

    Just because less than half a cent out of your paycheck goes to helping single mothers, doesn't give you the right to be the complete authority over their parenting choices.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Use birth control."

    Sometimes it doesn't work.


    And it especially doesn't work when women choose to not use birth control, or when they lie about using birth control because they want to have a child out of wedlock and stick the taxpayer with the bill.

    I doubt you would dare to suggest this [get an abortion] to any woman in person. It's a pretty touchy issue.

    How can that be? Feminists and liberals have told us that women are liberated these days; that abortion is both "safe" and "legal." I am sure that today's liberated females will have no problem with discussing abortion.

    [marriage] Not an option for many women, for tons of obvious reasons.

    Incredible as it may sound, until the 1960s, most people actually did get married. The point, I think, that Flyover Libertarian was making is that liberalism's pet projects -- Sexual Revolution, feminism -- have led to a social disaster insofar as it has destroyed the family and created an entire class of people dependent upon the state for their standard of living.

    My point was that this was intentional, that the liberal New Class works to wreck the traditional family in order to justify the expansion of the bureaucracy.

    Just because less than half a cent out of your paycheck goes to helping single mothers, doesn't give you the right to be the complete authority over their parenting choices.

    The cost is in the massive social burdens created by single parent families, especially those without fathers. Children raised without a father in the house have higher rates of crime and such.

    It is also disturbing to see that men are being driven out of their own homes and children's lives by welfare policies, no-fault divorce, child visitation policies, and so forth. Again, though, we might argue that this is intentional, to wreck the family and neutralize men in society, thereby empowering the bureaucracy.

    You have to consider if you are being used as a pawn in a bigger game.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "And it especially doesn't work when women choose to not use birth control, or when they lie about using birth control because they want to have a child out of wedlock and stick the taxpayer with the bill."

    How often do you really think this happens? Guests of the Maury show are not exactly representative of most people. There are very, very, very few people in the world who think having a baby out of wedlock when they don't have the money to provide for it is a good idea. Most single mothers are in that position because they did use birth control, and it failed. Not because they are all too stupid or too manipulative to use it.

    "How can that be? Feminists and liberals have told us that women are liberated these days; that abortion is both "safe" and "legal." I am sure that today's liberated females will have no problem with discussing abortion."

    Being pro-choice doesn't mean being pro-telling women they need to get an abortion so that they do not become a drain on society.

    As for the marriage issue, yes, this new phenomenon of people waiting to get married to a person they actually like rather than doing it out of intense social pressure has come with some negative consequences, as all new social phenomena do. I think the newfound social freedom is worth those negative consequences, and I also think that we will eventually work out the kinks and learn to deal with this freedom better. There will always be people who abuse their freedoms, but that doesn't mean we should go back to a time when those freedoms did not exist, or were so intensely discouraged that their existence was pretty much irrelevant.

    I notice you didn't answer the abstinence question.

    ReplyDelete
  12. How often do you really think this happens?

    It's not a question of what I think, but the stats about the incident of out-of-wedlock births:

    Among blacks: c. 70% of the time.
    Among Hispanics: c. 50% of the time.
    Among Whites: c. 24% of the time.
    Among Asians: c. 10% of the time.

    Now, if women choose to have children out of wedlock, that is their choice. But then they need to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, not pass the costs on to the taxpayer.

    Being pro-choice doesn't mean being pro-telling women they need to get an abortion so that they do not become a drain on society.

    To the contrary: if I, the taxpayer, have to foot the bill for the irresponsible behavior of others, then I have every right to tell them how to behave. Let us note that the government is pro-telling the American people how to "behave" in any number of things:

    To not use drugs (D.A.R.E., anti-drug PSAs, etc.).

    To attend mandatory "diversity" and "sensitivity" indoctrination programs (at the cost of losing one's job if one refuses to go along with the program).

    For non-custodial parents to pay child support or else be labeled a "deadbeat" and then be deprived of professional licenses as well as one's pay and liberties. (One wonders if women who chose to have children out-of-wedlock were similarly sanctioned, would the problem of illegitimacy not be cut down to reasonable proportions?)

    The woman in the article cited by Flyover Libertarian was pro-telling the government -- and the taxpayer -- that they had to ante up the cash to pay for her lifestyle. It works both ways.

    As for the marriage issue, yes, this new phenomenon of people waiting to get married to a person they actually like...

    Except this does not happen. We can see this in the declining marriage rates. And the normalizaton of single motherhood, supported by taxpayers.

    Let me note that one of the more common complaints among women is that they can not find anyone to marry. So clearly the system described above is not working. Of course, single mothers have reduced their own marketability as marriage material.

    It all comes down to actions having consequences.

    I think the newfound social freedom is worth those negative consequences, and I also think that we will eventually work out the kinks and learn to deal with this freedom better.

    And when will that happen? We have had the Sexual Revolution for some five decades. And we have seen a massive leap in all the pathologies we were once warned about: divorce, rampant illegitimate births, the general destruction of the family, and let us not forget assorted STD epidemics.

    And again, if people would take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions, then there would be no libertarian objection. But when the taxpayer is expected to pick up the bill for AIDS patients, illegitimate children, and the lifestyles of faux-middle class women, then the freedoms of said taxpayers are being infringed.

    ReplyDelete
  13. HOW DARE YOU ASK WOMEN TO MAKE RESPONSIBLE CHOICES YOU BIGOT!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  14. It's wrong to punish irresponsible people for making bad decisions. Let's punish the responsible people instead.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "It's not a question of what I think, but the stats about the incident of out-of-wedlock births:

    Among blacks: c. 70% of the time.
    Among Hispanics: c. 50% of the time.
    Among Whites: c. 24% of the time.
    Among Asians: c. 10% of the time."

    I don't know if you read my question wrong or if you are being intentionally misleading...I asked you how often you think women lie about using birth control in order to trick their partners into impregnating them, not the rate of out of wedlock births in general. I highly doubt there are any statistics out there about this rare phenomenon, and if there are, they sure as hell aren't anywhere near the number of out of wedlock births in general.

    And once again, the amount of tax money (and whatever social costs you believe to exist) you personally pay towards single mothers is so infinitesimal that you should not have any say in their life choices overall.

    The examples you bring up about the government "telling people what to do" are extremely petty in comparison to pressuring a woman into getting an abortion. But then, MRAs are nothing if not petty.

    "Except this does not happen. We can see this in the declining marriage rates."

    So some people stay forever single instead of getting married to someone they don't like. It's debatable which one of those options is preferable.

    Also, you really think five decades is enough time to adjust to such a fundamental shift in the way people lead their lives?

    Lastly, your freedoms as a taxpayer are not being infringed as long as you have the right of representation, which you do.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Souza, So the fact that I can vote gives the government care blanche to do what it wants to?

    5 decades as time to adjust to what? People have been adjusting to the welfare state by becoming more careless about their reproductive decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Souza, So the fact that I can vote gives the government care blanche to do what it wants to?"

    As long as it's constitutional, which taxes are.

    "5 decades as time to adjust to what?"

    The move away from traditional marriage as an economic and social necessity to an institution of choice.

    ReplyDelete
  18. But again, the choice is not simply moving away from marriage -- which people have the right to do -- but the insistence that the government subsidize their choices. As for the amount of tax money involved in these subsidies, if it is so miniscule, then I am sure those who are in favor of programs subsidizing unwed mothers would have no problem with anteing up their own money to see that they continue.

    As for women who lie about using birth control: this is something that ought to be studied more.

    The examples you bring up about the government "telling people what to do" are extremely petty in comparison to pressuring a woman into getting an abortion.

    It's petty to deprive someone of their professional licenses? Or jail a cancer patient for using alternative medication? Or encourage children to rat out their friends and parents over smoking a joint? Or fire someone for not going along with a "diversity" program? These are serious, life-changing sanctions which the state inflicts on people.

    But then, MRAs are nothing if not petty.

    Typical feminist/feminized male response: start the name calling instead of dealing with the issue.

    It's wrong to punish irresponsible people for making bad decisions. Let's punish the responsible people instead.


    Funny thing is, this has been the national policy for some decades.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "It's petty to deprive someone of their professional licenses? Or jail a cancer patient for using alternative medication?"

    You didn't mention either of these two things before. But I'm not sure what they have to do with anything. Who is more likely to be against alternative medicine, conservatives or liberals?

    "Or encourage children to rat out their friends and parents over smoking a joint?"

    Again, what? You are criticizing liberal government policies. The anti-drug movement was started by the very same people who share your ideology about welfare programs and taxation. So...I'm not getting your point.

    "Or fire someone for not going along with a "diversity" program?"

    Now that IS a petty concern. Most diversity training workshops only last a few hours. (Unfortunately, most are not very effective either.) But of course an employer should be able to fire someone for not attending if the employer thinks not attending will hurt that employee's job performance.

    "As for women who lie about using birth control: this is something that ought to be studied more."

    LOL! You really think we should waste time looking into what percentage of women lie about using birth control? That is hilarious. You are a completely silly person, and no longer worth responding to.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Souza, you mentioned you were the "son of a single mother." Presumably, this means you are a male. If so, then why do you apparently take the side of women against men? This is a phenomenon we see a lot of today. Perhaps you can explain why you are surrendering your own interests to those of women.

    What do you plan to do when the day comes when a female in your life decides to lie about using birth control in order to entrap you into 18 years of child support? Or if you found yourself in a divorce court, losing everything you had built over a lifetime? Or rotting in a jail cell on a false charge of rape?

    Think you'd still be saying "LOL?"

    The thing is, sooner or later every male feminist finds himself in one of these or a related situation. Then it will be the MRAs and the un-PC people who will be there to stand up for him -- not his feminist ex-comrades. Indeed, some of the most fanatic MRAs are men like yourself who found themselves victimized by women, and only then did they see the light.

    The anti-drug movement was started by the very same people who share your ideology about welfare programs and taxation.


    Drug prohibition was initially enacted during the Progressive Era (early 20th century) with bans on the sale of opiates and (during the New Deal) cannabis. Drug prohibition was in part an outgrowth of alcohol prohibition, which was one of the platforms of the woman's suffrage movement of the 19th century. This is typical of how feminists hate individual liberty.

    As for the current drug war, it had its origins in the 1960s in the backlash to the counter-culture of the time (perhaps you are too young to remember this). A crackdown on drugs was promoted by, among others, such Senate liberals as Ted Kennedy. LSD and other psychedelic drugs were outlawed during the liberal 1960s. Interestingly enough, during the conservative 1950s, LSD was not only legal, it was in wide use as a psychiatric drug. And it was the liberal Democrat, Bill Clinton, whose administration cracked down on alternative healthcare providers.

    On the other hand, many conservatives, such as William F. Buckely, jr., were staunch opponents of the drug war.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Just another person wanting a lifestyle they can't afford and expecting other people to pick up the tab.

    2K a month for baby sitting? Sounds like a racket to me. This is a job we used to give to children.

    If this woman did her "freelance writing" from home, she could watch her own children for free. Or she could team up with 4 other similar women so 4 could work and one could watch children and Oprah all day. Total cost to taxpayers: zero.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Souza, you mentioned you were the "son of a single mother." Presumably, this means you are a male. If so, then why do you apparently take the side of women against men?"

    How am I doing this? By supporting government aid to single mothers? Are you really so pathologically anti-woman that you can't even recognize how this might also help the male children of single mothers?

    Had my mother not received government aid, IN ADDITION to working a full-time job, I would have grown up even poorer than I did. I can't wait for you to tell me how that would be beneficial to me, as a man.

    You are so interested in punishing women, you fail to see the many ways this type of sexism hurts men too.

    "This is a phenomenon we see a lot of today. Perhaps you can explain why you are surrendering your own interests to those of women."

    Again, I'm not. And this "us vs. them" bullshit is insane. Even most feminists don't frame their positions by saying "It's either the side of the men, or the side of us!" Because most feminists recognize that we are in this together, and our interests really aren't all that different.

    "What do you plan to do when the day comes when a female in your life decides to lie about using birth control in order to entrap you into 18 years of child support?"

    The odds of this happening are so low, you might as well ask me what I plan to do when a skydiver lands on me after a parachute malfunction.

    "Or if you found yourself in a divorce court, losing everything you had built over a lifetime?"

    How many men seriously "lose everything" in divorce court? I'm sure it happens sometimes, but it's certainly not the epidemic MRAs make it out to be.

    "Or rotting in a jail cell on a false charge of rape?"

    Again, the chances of this happening are extremely low, and unlike you I don't live my life in a state of white male supremacist paranoia.

    "Think you'd still be saying "LOL?""

    I think most men who saw your batshit crazy comments would find them pretty damn hilarious.

    "The thing is, sooner or later every male feminist finds himself in one of these or a related situation."

    "Every male feminist?" My God, you are a statistics fail.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Souza is a great example of the kind of fucked up psychologically crippled bastard children that irresponsible single women produce.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Children of single mothers are not the target of your anger as I understand it. This is in response to the back and forth I was only marginally inclined to read so I apologize for any misunderstanding.

    Dude, I am a single 'mestizo' woman shy of 30. Regardless of what you may think about me or my 'kind', I am inclined to side with you on the consequences of poor choices--after all isn't this your true hang up? That irresponsible people should be held accountable and that bystanders should not be forced to lower their own quality of life so another dummy can get ahead?

    It's not the kids, it's the parents... as always. But that right there is your own argument: The 'bastards' of these women are also bystanders. I suppose the trade off society makes to protect what I feel are truly 'innocents' in this scenario is the burden to the tax payer... after all, no one asks to be born, and we are pretty much left to chance what we are born into.

    I cannot in good conscience proceed to rationalize that because dumb people have kids, they too will be dumb and/or make dumb mistakes (nature vs nurture). Some children born to truly dumb people (me) go on to lead healthy happy productive tax-paying lives. I am willing to pay for the hope of these people and therefore the decrease in overall number of dumb people as a tool against the impending over reproduction of these dumb people.

    I feel that not paying for these people will increase the chances of them intermixing with my future offspring and I don't want dumb people in my gene pool. I feel mitigation of disastrous effects is much more beneficial to me, rather than decrying the existence of dumb people.

    No, money and education may not necessarily increase success... but it sure doesn't hurt...

    My parents stayed together 22 years 'for the kids' ... but I still grew up very poor. State sponsored education and opportunities has changed my life, and for this I am eternally grateful. I can not speak for others, but I do know that some help is good...

    I do agree that if there are children involved, parents should realize that life is no longer about them. That maybe paying for your actions by pooling incomes for the proper care of families is the best thing for all. That poverty is almost a sure thing for families conceived out of wedlock and that children should not bear the consequences of poor choices.

    People have this overly romanticized view of the functions of marriage... lust and romance do not a family justify and the gospel of birth control can ring true for most of us... but I digress...

    ReplyDelete
  25. Great article, TAS.

    I know this is nigh upon a dead thread, but I look at this and see government purposefully building a constituency with which it can later use that influence to do its bidding.

    Kinda like states and highway funding in the late 80s, where the FedGov threatened to withhold highway funds unless it raised the legal drinking age from 18 to 21.

    "State sponsored education and opportunities has changed my life, and for this I am eternally grateful. "

    Karen, question for you: do you think private charitable education (as opposed to taxpayer-financed state education) would do as good or better of a job?

    The reason why I ask is that you are correct the need is and will always be out there (and will always be there Matt 26:11), but the deliverer of that help need not be the government.

    As for children not bearing the consequences of poor choices, helping the children by necessity spills over unearned and certainly undeserved largesse to their parent(s). Thus you subsidize bad choice-making. Unless you intend to confiscate the children from bad parents...

    For me, a sure-fired way to fix a lot of our social problems is to bring back the stigma against unwed parenthood. With a vengence. For without it, we have what we do presently.

    ReplyDelete
  26. FUCKING NIGGERS PAYING WITH FOODSTAMPS THEN FUCKING BUYING NEWPORTS FUCK YOU PIECE OF TRASH

    ReplyDelete