Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Screw Single Mothers

It's time for another post in which I bash a feminist who whines about the plight of "poor" single women who spawn bastard children and then expect society to pick up the tab. I found this article, "Single mothers need pathway out of poverty," via Feministing. It was published on Mother's Day by Majorie R. Sims on The Grio, a black website apparently affiliated with MSNBC.

As we celebrate mothers across the nation this week, I'm reminded of a segment of mothers who likely will face more challenges than cheers this Mother's Day.

In the U.S., the number of children in single-mother families has risen dramatically over the past four decades, with nearly one-fourth (24 percent) of the 75 million children under age 18 living in a single-mother family. Race also plays a defining role in the poverty rate, with two-thirds (66 percent) of low-income African American children living in single-mother families, compared to just over a third (35 percent) of low income white children living in single-mother households. This growing number of single-mother families has a significant impact on their children.

The reason why single mother families have been increasing in number is because in the 1960s, feminists and public policy decided that fathers were optional and that one woman could provide for and raise children just as well as a father and mother. And this sure will have a significant impact on their children - they will be more likely to commit crime and have bastards of their own.

According to a recent report issued by the Population Reference Bureau (PRB), children of mother-headed families are more likely to live in poverty, with 42 percent of all low-income children living in single-mother families, compared to 32 percent of children in non single-mother families. For children under the age of 8, results are even more striking, with more than three-quarters (77 percent) of young children in single-mother families falling in the poor or low-income range. In addition, children of mother-headed families are more likely to drop out of high school and less likely to have health insurance.

If families led by single mothers are so awful, then instead of promoting single motherhood, the government should cut its wealth redistribution programs, thus ending the subsidies for this.

These single mothers face their own challenges, with data showing they tend to be less educated, less likely to have a job or full-time employment and considerably less likely to have a management position or professional occupation. In fact, the largest proportion of working, low-income mothers work in services, with 41 percent of low-income single mothers working in services compared to only 17 percent of higher-income single moms.

A recent report from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research shows that single-parent families believe their economic stability, role as parents and financial providers, and sense of well-being are all negatively impacted by the challenges inherent in single parenthood. At the same time, single parents remain hopeful and express deep commitment to their families and believe in their ability to provide a strong home life and future for their children despite the obstacles.

So in other words, they knew they couldn't support a family by themselves, yet they attempted to do so anyways and are failing. Good. Perhaps if enough of them fail, they young women will realize that trying to raise a family as a single mother is a bad idea.

Ideally, we need to improve the economic conditions of families who live at 200 percent of poverty and below, or with an annual income of $44,100 or less for a family of four. To help these women-headed families establish financial economic security, there are a few components critical to success. Gender-focused strategies can work well to provide skills, careers, financial education and new models of support to create pathways out of poverty. A greater understanding of the relationship between gender and poverty and an investment in projects that take on a gender-specific focus will help us meet the needs of these families.

Why should "we" do anything? It is not "our" (read: taxpayers') job to improve the conditions of these so-called families. And understanding the relationship between gender and poverty is pretty simple: when young, uneducated single women spawn bastards, the family will probably be poor due to the expenses of taking care of children.

Secondly, connecting vulnerable families to existing services and benefits - like financial education and high-quality, affordable early learning and childcare options--can help propel them forward on the path.

Third, single mothers need career ladders and quality job opportunities. We can make this happen by connecting them with community colleges, increasing the number of quality family-supporting jobs in lower-income communities and ensuring they have access to education and training that will lead to career advancement and entrepreneurship opportunities.

In the first part of the article, Sims writes about the problems with single motherhood. Now, she writes about how "we" (read: middle and upper-class white people who pay taxes) can improve the status of these single mothers' families. If we improve the status of single mothers' families to that of two-parent families, then there will be little incentive for many women to get married, which would increase single motherhood and lead to even more of the problems Sims described earlier, particularly the propensity for single mothers' bastards to commit crime and spawn more bastards (hooray for positive feedback loops!).

Also, the fact is that many single mothers simply would not benefit from more education. The fact is, higher education, even after decades of dumbing-down, still requires an above average IQ. Single mothers tend to come from populations with low average IQs, such as blacks, mestizos, and white trash, so forcing them through school would not allow them to climb the career ladder. Not to mention the fact that the dumb sluts got pregnant while they were young and poor in the first place is evidence that they are not very smart, so it makes no sense to waste money on morons to go to school when are smart people who could use money for college (funded through private scholarships, rather than government grants, of course).

We cannot merely focus on moving women-headed families above the poverty line. Rather we should consider ways to help them transform their lives from just surviving to actually thriving, with an increase in the number of women holding quality jobs; more low-income families with bank accounts, savings and increased financial knowledge; and ultimately, significantly fewer single-mother families living at or below 200 percent of the poverty line. Let's honor these mothers with fresh thinking, innovative models and policy decisions that will actually change the trajectory of their lives and those of their children.
In the end it is revealed: this push for helping single mothers is just another way for liberals to expand the welfare state and the reach of government. Pretty much everything liberals advocate ultimately leads to those goals.

Also this week, Melissa McEwan, the disgustingly fat feminist who runs Shakespeare's Sister in between runs to her local all-you-can-eat pizza buffet, wrote an article with a similar theme on Alternet, attacking a conservative who wrote an article attacking single-mother families in the underclass and advocating instead that the government increase social services. Kievsky at Occidental Dissent wrote a decent rebuttal.

Liberals probably really care about single mothers as much as I do (which is not at all), they just use them to expand government by replacing fathers with welfare.


  1. good post. you ever read the Zero Tolerance Men (We Have Had Enough Of Insane Women!) blog?

    This guy goes off on the isane demands and long lists of requirements by these single mommies about dating. Like they are some kind of hot commodity on hte dating market.

    I think there i a definate link - not thoroughly explored- between the govt support and the ridiculous demands these women make about dating a man. These delusional women think that they can play the hold out for a rich man game because of the govt support they get.

    Its as if the govt support inflates their egos and makes them think that they occupy a high place in the dating market. Ridiculous.

  2. We have, in effect, a dysgenic policy in the USA. Policy is to encourage the lowest common denominator to reproduce irresponsibly, as you note.

    Meanwhile, policy restricts the options of the intelligent. Affirmative action, income redistribution, and the rest of the liberal agenda work against higher-IQ people, as well as the middle. Traditional two parent families are forced via the tax system to support single mother families who are now slowly becoming the majority.

    I think one reason that the USA is on a downward curve is precisely because the country promotes just such dysgenics. The high-IQ and (perhaps more importantly) high-responsibility individuals who once rose to the top are now being shunted aside for the low-IQ and the irresponsible. Men and women who might have once dealt with challenges such as globalization, decline of the middle class, collapse of infrastructure, etc., are being replaced. American society is increasingly taking on the characteristics of single mothers: inability to think or plan long term, wealth consumerism as opposed to wealth creation, reliance on a paternalistic state for everything.

    In the end it is revealed: this push for helping single mothers is just another way for liberals to expand the welfare state and the reach of government.

    You sum it up nicely.

    If we go back 40-50 years, liberals promised that the Sexual Revolution, in conjunction with safe and legal birth control-abortion, would end the problem of unwed mothers. Of course, since then the problem has exploded. What is even more amazing is that no one seems to be calling liberals to account for the failure of their promises.

    And then toss in liberal divorce laws which make it increasingly dangerous for anyone to get married since the 50+% divorce rate and subsequent alimony, etc., make things less than pleasant. Liberals have gotten their wish: the family, which has been criticized as the "central institution of oppression in bourgeoisie-patriarchal society" has been destroyed.

    There is also the anti-male part of the program. While the article supports single mothers, single fathers are, apparently, to be cut out of public services and thus reduced to second class citizens. One wonders if this is part of the usual feminist campaign against men. And of course, we will find male feminists no doubt supporting the exclusion of men on one grounds or another (perhaps any male feminists reading this can explain why).

    Liberals create the problem by supporting policies which encourage single mothers, then get full employment for themselves by creating bureaucracies which clean up the mess they made. Actually, they do not clean up the mess, but instead perpetuate and, as noted, encourage it.

    Again, it gets back to dysgenics. It's a war on the high-IQ and the responsible, fully funded by the state.

  3. Great post.

    ", or with an annual income of $44,100 or less for a family of four. To help these women-headed families establish financial economic security, there are a few components critical to success. Gender-focused strategies can work"

    Dude, 44K is the median income in the US. Depending on where you live, 44K is a nice chunk of change and one should be able to raise up two children on that much cash.

    And "gender-focused" strategies? Code word for payola for women only. As if we don't already have taxpayer monies earmarked for chicks who make bad decisions: WIC, welfare, child support enforcement, matching funds for child support collected, etc.

    Of course I'm sure it escapes all these nimrods that a goodly portion of the tax revenues to pay out to women only are seized from men under threat of violence.

    "Also, the fact is that many single mothers simply would not benefit from more education. "

    Yup. And it's not just about IQ either...these choice mommies gravitate toward fields of study that do not lend toward value-added production.

    "Not to mention the fact that the dumb sluts got pregnant while they were young and poor in the first place is evidence that they are not very smart,"

    Or not in very much control of themselves. Either way, its dysgenic.

    "Let's honor these mothers"

    Why? Because they screwed up? Made mistakes? Seems to me we should be using their example as a teachable moment...in other words, don't screw up like these chicks did.

  4. Last week I was over at the local welfare office and ran into my son's former school aide there. She (26 and white)was with her two bastard children, one a two-year old and the other less than two months old.

    "Don't tell me", I said, "You just broke up with your boyfriend (also white, for the record)". No car, no job, just two poor beautiful little boys who already are starting life with every disadvantage one can possibly imagine.

    These were not "oops" babies (and certainly the second one wasn't!). She just decided she needed to be a mom and screw the rest of us. "Society" can pay for it, right?

    Oh yes, what was I doing at the welfare office? I was applying for recertification for my son's Medicaid participation under the Katie Beckett Waiver. My son is 11 and autistic, and Medicaid is his secondary health insurance. I have no qualms about this as his situation was not one of choice. If I can pay for millions of bastard spawn and day care for middle-class mothers, they can pay for my son's medications.

  5. @sestamibi:
    "If I can pay for millions of bastard spawn and day care for middle-class mothers, they can pay for my son's medications."

    Since you're on welfare you probably don't pay more in taxes than you loot from taxpayers, so you aren't paying for middle-class mothers' daycare.

    But I'm no fan of middle-class welfare queens, either. I wrote a post about them here: http://flyoverlibertarian.blogspot.com/2010/04/middle-class-welfare-queens.html

  6. Who is evolutionarily 'fitter'? The species that works harder, or the species that continues to propagate their kind?

    Darwin never said: Let the smartest survive...

    So what if you are smarter and more beautiful and wealthier... if your kind dies out, who wins?

    I contend that welfare moms are the fittest of the American 'species' given their reproductive efficiency.

    The most realistic way to even this out is to reproduce as well... in that way creating a hope for greater quantities of your kind in the future. If you don't... it's only going to get more and more socialist.

    I agree with the basics of your premise, state accountability of the poor only serves to increase the quantity of poor. This is a commons problem at its most fundamental level. As always, government does an inefficient job of running a welfare program. We should privatize welfare. The true genius will be revealed in the corporation that finds a way to profit from welfare. lol

    I feel your pain.

  7. Personally I'm looking forward to putting the last building blocks in place to form women's goal of a true matriarchy.

    Right now the matriarchal construct is being built on the backs of men. I look forward to the day when the matriarchal state frees men from having to provide to women that are not our wives and her children as well....

    The matriarchs will free us when they get all the welfare from state won't they... dear god, won't they? Matriarchy is tyranny.

  8. I'm a hard-working divorced single businesswoman mom of three (all three children happy and successful) whose limp-dick husband decided after having children to become a pothead because he couldn't take the pressure of responsibility. I am glad to be single because people always joked that this loser was "my fourth child". However, not being related to me by blood, he was cast to the streets for deliberately opting out on us. To then stalk me for "access" via Family Court, of course.
    Read dastardly dads blogspot to find out what happens when men can't force women to continue to provide unremunerated service to them anymore, and read liz library for more information on fatherless children and the many contributions they have made to the world - because of mothers who did a good job without men.

  9. thank you very much fro your post, you just gave me the right quote for my paper to prove that we still live in a patriarchy and that men tend to think they are much better than us. Thank you.

  10. Whoever wrote this post is a dumbass, when a single mom is suffering from poverty it's because her marraige failed, women who are single moms from a donor have no issues with supporting their kids and are usually career women. How about finding something constructive to talk to about.

  11. Incredible blog! Living in an area where unwed mothers on welfare is the norm (and blogging about it), I see this every single day, all day. Every single thing you said about these single moms is spot on, 100%. I often wondered if I was the only guy who felt the same way.