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.

Watering the Tree of Liberty

What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

-Thomas Jefferson, 1787

By now most people have heard about Joseph Stack's suicide attack on an Austin, Texas, building housing an IRS office. He hates corporations, but he also hates the government. Trying to place him in our outdated left-right spectrum results in something comparable to a division by zero error on a computer. Still, some people are trying to figure out if he is a liberal or conservative. After having a "conservative" Republican president who spent like he could create money with the snap of his fingers (oh... wait) and a "liberal" Democratic president who bails out corporations, I thought people would have started to realize how stupid the left-right model really is.

Fox News' big headline is "Crime or Terror? Questions Over Why Attack on IRS Isn't Domestic Terror." In the article itself they quote Austin police chief Art Acevedo as saying "I call it a cowardly, criminal act, and there was no excuse for it."

While I am of the opinion that his arson attack on his house and his attempted murder of his wife and children was a cowardly, criminal attack, his suicide attack on the IRS was neither cowardly, nor criminal. In America, we often accuse so-called terrorists - especially suicide attackers - of being cowardly, but they really are not (Bill Maher and Dinesh D'Souza discussed this on Maher's show shortly after the 9/11 attacks). Joseph Stack was not afraid to die to send his message and he died with his victims. He was a hell of a lot more brave than an AC-130 gunner or a B-2 pilot killing their victims from far above them without any real danger to themselves.

As for labeling his attack on the IRS terrorist, that term does not apply to him. He was not trying to terrorize the civilian population, he was sending a message to the tax collectors of the largest government on earth. And anyways, the word "terrorist" has basically come to refer to the weaker side of any 4GW conflict. Terrorism is committed not just by individuals and non-state actors, but by governments, as well. The powers that be will never refer to the Dresden firebombing, the Waco massacre, the bombing of Serbia, or the war in Iraq as terrorism, yet state terrorism has killed more people than domestic terrorists and Islamic terrorists ever will.

As mentioned above, I believe his attempted murder of his wife and children was a criminal act, but his attack on the IRS was not. He was not the criminal, that role belongs to the IRS, the largest gang of racketeers in history. The IRS destroys people's lives, families, businesses, prosperity, and future so the federal government can have money to redistribute to the underclass, bailout and subsidize big business, and bomb people thousands of miles away. In my opinion, Joseph Stack was like people who shoot burglars or robbers, only he took on a much larger and dangerous robber.

Some might respond, the IRS workers are just doing what they are required to do by law and, besides, they need to support their families somehow. "Just following orders" has never worked as a defense. People are ultimately responsible for their own actions. And the vast majority of people are able to support their families with productive (or at least non-destructive) jobs that do not involve stealing from others.

Joseph Stack was the newest individual in the long line of Americans who have watered the Tree of Liberty.

Tea Party Demographics

Over at Alternut, Tana Ganeva has a post entitled "Shocking: Tea Partiers Mostly Rich, White, Christian Guys." The data can be found here (PDF).

Much like all the founding fathers and most of the Republican party, a whole lot of the Tea Partiers are rich, white, Christian men. According to a new CNN poll (via TPM), a majority of respondents who had donated to a Tea Party group or participated in a Tea Party event were male, white, and identified as Protestant/Other Christian groups.

2010 is well before 2042, so whites are still a majority of the American population. Thus it should not be surprising that most Tea Partiers are white. Also, while women outnumber men in the United States, the gender gap is small enough that it would fall within the margin of error. The fact that most fall into the "Protestant/Other Christain (sic) groups" category is interesting but unsurprising. Jews are overwhelmingly liberal (but that's okay) and many American Catholics are either Democrat-supporting Hispanics or members of white ethnic groups that lean Democrat.

Keep in mind that "most," "mostly," and "majority" are vague terms meaning "greater than 50%." She never cites the exact statistics for those categories in her post, so those words are basically meaningless.

Regardless, it makes sense that whites make up most of the Tea Party movement. Whites pay most of the federal income taxes and blacks and Hispanics take a disproportionate amount in government services. True, poor blacks and Hispanics, like everyone else, pay payroll taxes, but they are basically refunded this through the EIC. Even in this era of multiculturalism, white self-hatred, and political correctness, the observation that whites pay more in taxes than NAMs is not lost on whites.

According to the data, the racial breakdown of the Tea Party activists was 80% white, 2% black, and 10% Hispanic. The percentages of all respondents was 71% white, 2% black, and 11% Hispanic. The margin of error was 3 percentage points. So it looks like the whiteness of the Tea Party movement is not due to the lack of Hispanic participation, but rather due to the fact that blacks want free stuff from Obama. The relatively high percentage of Hispanics in the movement compared to the overall population is probably due to the fact that only registered voters were polled, excluding illegal and non-citizen legal immigrants.

As for the fact that most of the Tea Partiers are men, it makes sense. After all, women can't exactly teabag liberals. Seriously, if you look at the data Ganeva linked to, 60% of the Tea Party Activists are male, which is a pretty substantial majority. This is probably due to the fact that men are more likely to be supporting a family on their income, so they want to be able to keep more of their money, whereas a single career woman is only supporting herself and her cats and single mothers are essentially wedded to Big Government - they use it as a second source of income. Plus, women in general are more likely to support larger government.

It gets even better:

Also, most went to college. 40 percent are college grads, compared to just 28 percent of total poll respondents, and 34 percent have some college.

So much for the liberal myth that conservative voters are bunch of dumb rednecks. It's funny that liberals frequently accuse conservatives of being "anti-intellectual" and "anti-education," yet Tana uses this as evidence of how out of touch the Tea Partiers are. I thought being college educated was supposed to be a good thing.

They make a ton more money than the other people interviewed for the study: 34 percent make over $75,000, while 32 make between $50,000 and $75,000. That’s way more than half pulling in over $50,000. So real, genuine Americans seem to be doing pretty well for themselves(.)

I agree with the headline that this is "shocking." It is shocking that liberals are so out of touch with reality.

Here we have the liberal definition of "rich": someone making more than $50,000 a year. That's funny. I'm willing to bet that most of the white New Englanders and Left Coasters make more than $50,000 a year. So do most of the young, suburban Obamanites.

Actually, the people she considers rich make much less than $50,000 when you consider the fact that they have to feed the Leviathan with FICA, federal income tax, state income tax, property tax, sales tax, use tax, and myriad other taxes. (Aside: a good resource on taxes
in the USSA is the National Taxpayers Union.)
Where I come from, we have a term for someone making between $50,000 and $75,000: middle-class. Of course, I'm just from Jesusland. What would I know about anything.

None of this should be especially surprising. Most poor people scraping by in terrible, lowpaying (sic) jobs — or with no jobs — probably don’t have the time to don three-cornered hats and scream about communism."

Here we have some poor-worshiping. I don't think a liberal is capable of writing anything without a poor-worshiping paragraph. Yes, there are some poor people who are impoverished through no fault of their own and spend most of their time working. But most of these "poor people" are poor because they are drug-addicts, had kids at a young age, have low IQs, are criminals, or are just lazy. They have time to go to da club, smoke crack and weed, get drunk, and breed bastard children, so they have plenty of time. They choose not to go to Tea Parties because they disagree with the goals - they want more money from the government. Karl Marx called these people the "lumpenproletariat," while the current PC term is "underclass."

The rest of the "poor people" of whom she writes are either the kind of people Thomas Frank dislikes, working-class (proletariat) or rural whites who vote Republican, or they are people who had well-paying jobs until the Bush-Obama tag team (yes, I am oversimplifying) screwed everything up.

But there has been an MSM tendency to trumpet the movement as an eruption of populist rage by those crushed in the financial crisis. “Populism” liberals just don’t grasp, of course, because they’re all elitist and stuff

No, you don't grasp because you are too out of touch with reality and your ideology is defined by cognitive dissonance. You think global warming is bad, but nuclear power plants need to be shut down. Wind power is necessary, but you don't want wind farms in your back yard. We need to help the poor, but you don't donate any money to charities. The Iraq War is bad, but bombing white Christian Serbs is good. Bill Ayers is a good man, but Glenn Beck promotes sedition. I've gone a little off topic, but I think I've made my point about liberals' cognition and why it should be of no concern if they don't understand Tea Party populism.

Maybe, just maybe, it’s time to reconsider our associations of the word “elite” so it at least slightly correlates with things like money and privilage (sic).

When liberals refer to "privilege" they refer to their belief that every white, no matter their social class, is born with privilege that every black (even, say, Clarence Thomas) lacks. It's like the secular liberal version of original sin.

The fact is, someone who makes $65,000 a year (closer to $45,000 or so after taxes), is not "elite." The elites make more money than Tana could comprehend with her little mind (after all, anyone who thinks $50,000 is rich probably can't count too high). And guess what? In the 2008 election, people with incomes over $200,000 and people with master's and doctoral degrees favored Obama. Those are the elites. Accountants, truck drivers, small business owners, engineers, and retired factory workers are not.

Given demographic trends (PDF), this is definitely the movement the GOP should hitch their wagon to.

Her sarcastic remark is actually correct. More and more, white people are starting to realize what Obama and the Democrats really are and that no matter how hard you try, you can't please blacks. You'll just be called a racist.

The fact is, as America gets blacker and browner, more whites will begin to realize that the multicultural paradise is not arriving. They will notice the high crime rates, the failed schools, the roving, wilding gangs of black and Hispanic "youths," and the growing number of welfare parasites leeching off the 35% of their income they feed to the Leviathan. White Democrats who are exposed to this morph into Republicans. Now, the Republican Party as it currently exists is only slightly better than the Democratic Party, but the Tea Party movement has the potential to turn it into a true vanguard of liberty and sanity.