NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, I did a double-take too when I read that...


Single mothers, as well as those who refuse to work, should be penalised as part of a push to end dependence on welfare, [says] US poverty expert Lawrence Mead, head of politics at New York University.

[...] "You need explicit policies to enforce work and restore the family," Professor Mead said yesterday. "Dependency happens when parents do two things - first, have children outside of marriage, and second, when the men decline to support the family by working regularly. [...] We have to tell people that unwed pregnancy and non-work are wrong, and attach penalties to these behaviours."

So when a man abandons the woman he's had a child with out of wedlock, the woman should be punished. Riiiight... And here was me thinking this was the 21st century.

(Article (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21975211-5013172,00.html))

The problem with single women is that they arn't rich old white men, then they wouldn't have any problems.
The US' fanatical focus on morality leads to this kind of crap.

Oh. My. God. This is supposed to to be the 21 first century, right? Can't just we drop this "family values" and "morality" nonsense already?

Make poor women somehow "richer" by making them poorer and thus punishing them and their children for the man not paying alimony?

Brilliant logic there.

What the... cause they're not punished enough having to rear kids alone??? :eek::confused:

Complete and utter tripe. It's this kind of thing we're going to have to put up with when the Conservatives get in and start paying attention to their Daily Mail reading constituents. Not that Labour's any better...

So this basically boils down to 'poor people are poor because they're lazy'? :rolleyes:

How does 'the family will make everything all better' fit in with the recent story of the woman who had about half a dozen kids and was dependent on welfare?

So this basically boils down to 'poor people are poor because they're lazy'? :rolleyes:

How does 'the family will make everything all better' fit in with the recent story of the woman who had about half a dozen kids and was dependent on welfare?
It's ok as long as she has a husband. Gay couples and single women are bad and will destroy the world!

And of course poor people are poor because they are lazy, don't you listen to talk radio and watch FOX News talk show hours? They will tell you all this stuff.

The problem with single women is that they arn't rich old white men, then they wouldn't have any problems.
The US' fanatical focus on morality leads to this kind of crap.

Too bad it has little to do with morality, and more to do with ending dependence on welfare.

Too bad it has little to do with morality, and more to do with ending dependence on welfare.

That's what they want you to think.

Yes, I did a double-take too when I read that...


So when a man abandons the woman he's had a child with out of wedlock, the woman should be punished. Riiiight... And here was me thinking this was the 21st century.

Just another way to force women to remain in lousy relationships.

Too bad it has little to do with morality, and more to do with ending dependence on welfare.

Not quite. It will only end welfare, not the need for it.

How does 'the family will make everything all better' fit in with the recent story of the woman who had about half a dozen kids and was dependent on welfare?

Even better, how does it fit in with the recent stories of husbands and fathers losing it and killing their entire families?

That's what they want you to think.

Why should I believe that, after all the research that has been done into it?

Even better, how does it fit in with the recent stories of husbands and fathers losing it and killing their entire families?

Well, that might be drastic, but it's an efficient way to end dependence on welfare...

Not quite. It will only end welfare, not the need for it.

How could that be? If people work for money, you don't need welfare. But it's not actually aboloshing welfare.

How could that be? If people work for money, you don't need welfare. But it's not actually aboloshing welfare.

Are we talking about the same article here?

I am entirely unsurprised.

Are we talking about the same article here?

I'm not quite sure he is talking about the same reality.

Are we talking about the same article here?

Yes, and it mentions nothing about actually getting rid of the welfare system, just trying to encourage people off it.

I'm not quite sure he is talking about the same reality.

No, you're the one living in your fantasy tin foil hat world where the USA is all about enforcing morality and nothing to do with the economy.

i hope he loses his professorship. what an ignorant tool.

No, you're the one living in your fantasy tin foil hat world where the USA is all about enforcing morality and nothing to do with the economy.
Having people work will not remove the need for welfare. There are jobs that even when worked in multitude, will not support a family. And that is completely disregarding the healthcare system.

And if you live in a Bizarro world where the US doesn't care about enforcing morality even indirectly, it must be a nice place.

Why should I believe that, after all the research that has been done into it?

I'll see your "research" and raise you a "what research?"

Also, the first thing out of this guy's mouth was "It's single women with children that are the cause of social decline"

It's clear he is suffering from a common disease known as bigotitis and neanderthalism and must be cured with immediate high velocity particulate pollution. Preferably in the crotch.

I wonder... could this expert afford to have his head surgically removed from his ass so he can it kicked without further addling his already absent brains?

What makes single mothers worthy of being penalised? Just because some are on welfare doesn't mean all are. There are plenty who are out there every day working to make ends meet and many are successful. Or single fathers for that matter...

"Family values" aren't what they used to be and that may be a good thing. The world needs diversity. The conventional family doesn't always work. Family is something that sustains a person and doesn't have to fit into one area. As long as the group cares for each other, they're a family.

This "expert" needs to take a spoonful reality and call his doctor in the morning. Children born out of wedlock are NOT a problem nor is the lack of marriage.

Social decline starts with bad social policy at the government level, with cuts to programmes that work within communities to build a solid foundation on which people can build their lives. This includes and is not limited to a well-funded education system, starting with a good early childhood education programme. You cannot have good social policy if you make cuts to vital elements of society, and one of those vital elements is education.

What an odd point of view...

Having people work will not remove the need for welfare. There are jobs that even when worked in multitude, will not support a family. And that is completely disregarding the healthcare system.


It's already been done under Clinton and it worked.

"A reversal of these policies in the 1990s, the enforcement of existing laws and the restoration of the family had been the best way to tackle long-term poverty, he said.

Professor Mead, who has written extensively on welfare-to-work polices, was one of the intellectual driving forces behind the reforms introduced during the administration of president Bill Clinton in the 1990s. During the period, long-term unemployment declined and crime rates fell across US cities."

I'll see your "research" and raise you a "what research?"


"In America, research has shown it was not lack of jobs or childcare that kept people out of the workforce, but that welfare itself discouraged people from working. That's one reason why welfare and other societal problems such as crime all got much worse in the 1960s and 1970s. "




Now i'm not saying I entirely agree with him, but his underlying principles about work against welfare are totally correct.

If these people need to lighten the tax burden that damn much, maybe they should stop with all the damn pork barrel bullshit and use what they have more efficiently. This is the equivalent of the wealthy couple down the street deciding to buy a boat and getting the money by saying that sick little Timmy doesn't get to eat anymore.

It depends on the circumstances. Being a single mom shouldn't be a pass to stay on welfare forever. My mom managed to raise me and my bro on her own. She only got $60/mo child support, and she made $16/hr. Welfare is great to help a newly single mom get on her feet, or to help a family that's fallen on hard times. No one should be permanently on welfare, unless they are disabled.

It's already been done under Clinton and it worked.

"A reversal of these policies in the 1990s, the enforcement of existing laws and the restoration of the family had been the best way to tackle long-term poverty, he said.
What existing laws? And restoration of the family? Yeah, that totally isn't encouraging the enforcement of morality.

"In America, research has shown it was not lack of jobs or childcare that kept people out of the workforce, but that welfare itself discouraged people from working. That's one reason why welfare and other societal problems such as crime all got much worse in the 1960s and 1970s. "

Now i'm not saying I entirely agree with him, but his underlying principles about work against welfare are totally correct.
Unless welfare, unlike minimum wage, has increased with inflation, that is really irrelevant. This isn't the 60s or 70s. And some one might want to cite that "research." I take whatever this asshat says with a grain of salt. His principles are questionable at best, along with his ethics.

Unless welfare, unlike minimum wage, has increased with inflation, that is really irrelevant. This isn't the 60s or 70s. And some one might want to cite that "research." I take whatever this asshat says with a grain of salt. His principles are questionable at best, along with his ethics.
Governments actually increase welfare pay outs? That's a surprise. :rolleyes:

It's an American concept that you can legislate morality.

Republicans believe somehow, that you can legislate when people have sex or procreate.

Democrats believe somehow, that you can legislate how people treat each other.

@OP : Great just what we need, a woman who can't get a job because she has to raise a child gets punished -> the child grows up poor. Yay!

It's an American concept that you can legislate morality.

Republicans believe somehow, that you can legislate when people have sex or procreate.

Democrats believe somehow, that you can legislate how people treat each other.

And then you've got Gravel and Paul, who are each out in their own parties' respective left fields.

What existing laws? And restoration of the family? Yeah, that totally isn't encouraging the enforcement of morality.


The reasons behind it are not for the sake of "enforcing morality" as you like to call it (although it's no more enforcing morality then punishing crime). It's to restore the economy, which it did so. Funny this was under the democrats and not the republicans. I thought the democrats were the non evil morallity forcing ones right?


Unless welfare, unlike minimum wage, has increased with inflation, that is really irrelevant. This isn't the 60s or 70s. And some one might want to cite that "research." I take whatever this asshat says with a grain of salt. His principles are questionable at best, along with his ethics.

I don't know where his research came from, it's not said in the article. But it's unlikely that the head of politics in a New York university would just make this all up.

my mom is a single mom, so fuck you! we got enough shit to deal with we dont need this guys shit

Well if my mum or dad died and my remaining parent was penalised then I would have a few choice things to say to whoever decided to make that decision... and maybe a visit to them with a
:sniper:

And I am fairly sure that the money spent of prosecuting wars and setting up interrogation camps in foreign countries would be better spent on making people able to make ends meet.
Does anyone know of a case where people have been able to stop working because they received so much in benefits?

The reasons behind it are not for the sake of "enforcing morality" as you like to call it (although it's no more enforcing morality then punishing crime). It's to restore the economy, which it did so.
You may be going to buy some french fries but all you are really getting is a cut up potato.
And he is proposing something, how can it already have "restored the economy"? Penalizing single women for being single is absurd, sexist, and misogynistic.


Does anyone know of a case where people have been able to stop working because they received so much in benefits?
Not in the US - the cost of living is too high and payout too low.

You may be going to buy some french fries but all you are really getting is a cut up potato.
And he is proposing something, how can it already have "restored the economy"?

I didn't mean to use the word restore, I should have put improve. However he worked with Clinton in trying to get rid of dependance on welfare, through encouragement of work and as the article stated restoring the family.


Penalizing single women for being single is absurd, sexist, and misogynistic.


(it's single mothers not single women) I'm not saying I agree with this though, maybe I would if it was only single mothers who refuse to work and not just single mothers in general.

I'm not sure what exactly he means by penalizing though, if it's just heavier taxing or something then this is hardly unusual. The government tax people all the time when they put a strain on the economy, it's not unusual.

I wonder...

Where does this "expert" stand on divorced couples?

I supposed next he'd want to penalise couples who divorce...

and as the article stated restoring the family.
Patriarchal, sexist horsecrap - the assertion that without a husband, a women is a burden on society.


(it's single mothers not single women) I'm not saying I agree with this though, maybe I would if it was only single mothers who refuse to work and not just single mothers in general.

Single women or single mothers is irrelevant to what I said. It is still absurd, sexist, and misogynistic.

The government tax people all the time when they put a strain on the economy, it's not unusual.
The government is full of idiots.

This is one of the most rediculous things I've ever heard. (read for all you nazis) Nothing a .45 ACP couldn't fix; its the way America runs, as long as he isn't there to say it anymore everyone will forget.

Patriarchal, sexist horsecrap - the assertion that without a husband, a women is a burden on society.


Strawman. Single mothers, not women, are a strain on the economy, not society.


The government is full of idiots.

I guess you will have to be an anarchist then, because you wont be able to live in a government that doesn't tax people.

"In America, research has shown it was not lack of jobs or childcare that kept people out of the workforce, but that welfare itself discouraged people from working. That's one reason why welfare and other societal problems such as crime all got much worse in the 1960s and 1970s. "


What research? Anyone can say "research proves so and so". He'll have to quote proper studies before I'll believe what's coming out of that bigot's mouth.

Strawman. Single mothers, not women, are a strain on the economy, not society.


I know a few single mothers, they happen to make more then I do.

Strawman. Single mothers, not women, are a strain on the economy, not society.
But the assertion is that this strain can be fixed by "restoring the family" - ie, 'encouraging' traditional family and family roles. Patriarchal horsecrap.


I guess you will have to be an anarchist then, because you wont be able to live in a government that doesn't tax people.
Speaking of figures made of straw...
You support the government taxing people more heavily who are the biggest burden on society, ie poor people?

I don't know where his research came from, it's not said in the article. But it's unlikely that the head of politics in a New York university would just make this all up.

Hah! Half of politics is making things up. The other half is making people believe them.

Professor Mead said the best way to end welfare dependence was to let poor people know they were required to work.
Ahh, the good old "poor people are poor because they are lazy" argument. If Mead had any credibility, he should be strangled with it so as not to encourage such stupidity.

Also, let's take note that he is addressing an Australian community who are busy trying to villainize.. I mean reform the aboriginal people.

Make poor women somehow "richer" by making them poorer and thus punishing them and their children for the man not paying alimony?

Brilliant logic there.
But of course. It's to teach the dirty little sluts to keep their legs crossed. It's all the woman's fault, the filthy whores. Leading on the man like the painted Jezebels they are.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to wrap stout hessian cloth around the table legs, lest seeing their licentious curves excite the bestial urges within my nether regions....
...too late! Oh Gods I have succumb to urges more becoming to the beasts in the fields!
Now I must excuse myself. I need to hire a hansom cab forewith to take me to Whitechappel once more where I may clean the streets of those dirty dirty whores.

Strawman. Single mothers, not women, are a strain on the economy, not society.

You're blowing out your ass; I suggest you get that leaked looked at.

My mother was a "single" mother for a while during my childhood (my parents divorced when I was a child and my parents agreed to no child support after a while) and she was NOT a strain on the economy. She worked a full job at the government as a civil servant, has a good income and was able to not just put food on the table but keep the house looking good and we never struggled for money.

Fix your strawman.

You have ZERO proof that single mothers are a strain on the economy. Nada, zilch, diddly, squat.

I know a few single mothers, they happen to make more then I do.

Again, I didn't say I agree with it. But an economy with lots of single mothers and a dependance on welfare is bad, even though some single mothers might make a lot.

Again, I didn't say I agree with it. But an economy with lots of single mothers and a dependance on welfare is bad, even though some single mothers might make a lot.

No, an economy with many dependants is bad. Why are you singling out women? Men are just as capable as women as being lethargic parasites that leech off welfare.

But the assertion is that this strain can be fixed by "restoring the family" - ie, 'encouraging' traditional family and family roles. Patriarchal horsecrap.


I don't think thats what he means by restoring the family.


Speaking of figures made of straw...
You support the government taxing people more heavily who are the biggest burden on society, ie poor people?

I hardly support taxing at all. I just support encouragement to work over dependancy on welfare. Taxation is one way to encourage them.

I don't think thats what he means by restoring the family.
Then I would really love to hear your interpretation, it should be amusing.

I hardly support taxing at all. I just support encouragement to work over dependancy on welfare. Taxation is one way to encourage them.
"Poor people are poor because they are lazy."
Ehhhhhhhhhhhh, try again.

No, an economy with many dependants is bad. Why are you singling out women?

Because thats what the article is about.

Because thats what the article is about.
Which makes it better.. how?

Because thats what the article is about.

If it was, why are single mothers one of the prime targets and not just welfare recipients in general?

Then I would really love to hear your interpretation, it should be amusing.


The whole article mentions nothing about family roles, just a discouragement of single mothers. So obviously he wants people to get married before they have kids.


"Poor people are poor because they are lazy."
Ehhhhhhhhhhhh, try again.

So people on welfare, who are too lazy to work, are actually not too lazy to work?

If it was, why are single mothers one of the prime targets and not just welfare recipients in general?

Because the website likes to print contraversial stories. The guy said lots of things, not just about women but obviously they want to attract people into reading the article by focusing on what he said about single mothers.

If it was, why are single mothers one of the prime targets and not just welfare recipients in general?
Exactly.

There are plenty of single mothers who aren't on welfare at all. A friend of mine is a single mother who pulls in a higher salary than I am likely to EVER achieve. She's not a drain on the economy in any way. Single motherhood is clearly not, in and of itself, the problem.

That's why this kind of thing is such bunk. Sexist cowards don't have the balls to say what they're really thinking:

"Womenfolks are choosing not to remain married to assholes! And I'm an asshole, so that means a woman could actually choose to leave ME! Quick, let's impose a bunch of bullshit punishments that will force women to put up with guys like me, because heaven knows they aren't going to choose to stick around otherwise!"

Single mothers, as well as those who refuse to work, should be penalised as part of a push to end dependence on welfare, [says] US poverty expert Lawrence Mead, head of politics at New York University.

[...] "You need explicit policies to enforce work and restore the family," Professor Mead said yesterday. "Dependency happens when parents do two things - first, have children outside of marriage, and second, when the men decline to support the family by working regularly. [...] We have to tell people that unwed pregnancy and non-work are wrong, and attach penalties to these behaviours."

...Yeah...

As a son of a single mother, who left her husband due to the latter's mental health, and is simultaneously juggling work, kids and paying for college on a teacher's salary, all the while maintaining an excellent outlook on life...

Fuck you...Mr. Douchey McDouchebag.

The whole article mentions nothing about family roles, just a discouragement of single mothers. So obviously he wants people to get married before they have kids.
What about those who are divorced or widowed?

Does anyone know of a case where people have been able to stop working because they received so much in benefits?

I've seen it first hand. Don't get me wrong, these people are broker than broke. They could work, but they choose not to. They continue to have children they can't support. It's bullshit.

The article was far too general though. I'd guess most single mothers were like my mom and worked for a living.

You can never base opinions on the extremes, what about the big grey area in between?

I wonder...

Where does this "expert" stand on divorced couples?

I supposed next he'd want to penalise couples who divorce...

Considering the popularity of divorce nowadays, he would have an uphill battle.

Divorce is already full of penalties, and in any realistic sense, only people with money and means can afford it - try taking a working class family that is barely making ends meet, and have them split up - and find two separate places to live, and still support the children (even if someone PAYS their child support).

It usually results in comparative economic ruin for those who really can't afford it - and there should never be an entry price for divorce.

wtflol. =\

wtflol. =\

quoted for lolz

Considering the popularity of divorce nowadays, he would have an uphill battle.

Divorce is already full of penalties, and in any realistic sense, only people with money and means can afford it - try taking a working class family that is barely making ends meet, and have them split up - and find two separate places to live, and still support the children (even if someone PAYS their child support).

It usually results in comparative economic ruin for those who really can't afford it - and there should never be an entry price for divorce.

I don't have the link on hand, but, I did read something to the extent of your last statement that says that people who divorce are less likely to have more money in their retirement years than those who remain married and those who don't marry. In other words, divorce is extremely costly, especially when you get the courts and lawyers involved.

wtflol. =\

Maybe you should try the spam forum (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=29).

As a single mother (kids now grown) who was on welfare for a short time and then worked at the same dead end, boring, mind-numbing job (with an absolute bitch for a boss - I lived in fear of being fired on a daily basis for that time) for 23 years rather than go back on welfare I can only say ... WTF!?

Here's a better idea: let's penalize churchgoers for polluting the US with religious laws!

Here's a better idea: let's penalize churchgoers for polluting the US with religious laws!

Not all church goers. Just the religious right.

Punishing single moms for being single moms would be absolutely ridiculous. Most single moms (well, most people) who end up on welfare use it as a springboard - as support while they work to get into a better situation. In fact, if anyone should be "punished", it is the other parent - the one who isn't doing anything to support his children.

The other part of his statement on the other hand makes sense. Anyone who refuses to work should not receive welfare benefits of any kind. (Note, of course, that "refuses to work" is not equivalent to "is unable to work.")

You mean the religious wrong.

forcing mothers to work long hours for low pay will do wonders for strengthening the family, no doubt.

these idiots must never take the time and effort to step back and listen to themselves.

You mean the religious wrong.
The religious left is fine. It's the vocal members of the conservative religious community that tend to be asshats.


forcing mothers to work long hours for low pay will do wonders for strengthening the family, no doubt.

these idiots must never take the time and effort to step back and listen to themselves.

It doesn't mean a single mother can't work a 40 hour week like everyone else. And like I said before, most do.

I wonder... could this expert afford to have his head surgically removed from his ass so he can it kicked without further addling his already absent brains?

What makes single mothers worthy of being penalised? Just because some are on welfare doesn't mean all are. There are plenty who are out there every day working to make ends meet and many are successful. Or single fathers for that matter...

"Family values" aren't what they used to be and that may be a good thing. The world needs diversity. The conventional family doesn't always work. Family is something that sustains a person and doesn't have to fit into one area. As long as the group cares for each other, they're a family.

This "expert" needs to take a spoonful reality and call his doctor in the morning. Children born out of wedlock are NOT a problem nor is the lack of marriage.

Social decline starts with bad social policy at the government level, with cuts to programmes that work within communities to build a solid foundation on which people can build their lives. This includes and is not limited to a well-funded education system, starting with a good early childhood education programme. You cannot have good social policy if you make cuts to vital elements of society, and one of those vital elements is education.

Weren't nuclear families basically a 20th century invention anyway? I mean before the 1900s we didn't have good healthcare and hardly any cures for stuff, so wouldn't it have been quite common for single parents (and even siblings) to raise children? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I thought.

Anyway...
Single women wiht children is hardly the cause of social decline. If you ask me, people like this idiot are the cause. Not gay couples, not single mothers.

It doesn't mean a single mother can't work a 40 hour week like everyone else. And like I said before, most do.

It would certainly help though if the kid was old enough to go to school so that the woman wouldn't have to pay for a babysitter or even worse, daycare while she works. Assuming she can afford either as she may be working a McJob.

It would certainly help though if the kid was old enough to go to school so that the woman wouldn't have to pay for a babysitter or even worse, daycare while she works. Assuming she can afford either as she may be working a McJob.

If she's working a crappy job, then she should get on welfare while she goes to school. That's one of the things welfare should be used for.

In general, it seems people don't look at the positives people on welfare do. I like to think most people are on welfare temporarily, and use it as a way to improve their living situation. I think the waste of oxygen that's perfectly capable of working yet chooses to stay on welfare is the minority, they are just the most visible part of the welfare system.

If she's working a crappy job, then she should get on welfare while she goes to school. That's one of the things welfare should be used for. That's an excellent idea, and something I've seen many single mothers do.

In general, it seems people don't look at the positives people on welfare do. I like to think most people are on welfare temporarily, and use it as a way to improve their living situation. I think the waste of oxygen that's perfectly capable of working yet chooses to stay on welfare is the minority, they are just the most visible part of the welfare system.
Exactly. I've yet to meet a welfare bum. And I've yet to meet a single mother who wasn't supporting her child or children, at least in the main through her own wages.

But hey...it's so awesome to villanize people. Without scapegoats, where would we be?

I would support a welfare program that got people working as quickly as possible, even for single mothers. The trouble is that many of the single mothers who are most reliant on welfare are also women who became pregnant during their teenage years, and so their education may be minimal.

So, one option may be to provide free education for single mothers on welfare until they have completed their high school education. After this, some sort of vocational training could take place in order to give these women some marketable skills. At this point, they would only need wlefare until they got a job, which should only take a few weeks, at that point. This has the added advantage of ensuring that the children do not grow up in poverty, thereby breaking the cycle of endemic poverty, if such a cycle exists.

A system of bursaries and student loans could be used in place of a vocational education for those women who wish to follow university careers. I do not believe that women should be working if they are single parents pursuing a university degree. No one asks men to raise children, go to school full time, and work part time, all at the same time.

This is all assuming that the child(ren) are old enough to go to school during the day while the mother goes to school. If this is not the case, I would suggest that welfare pay for daycare in those areas where subsidised daycare is unavailable.

I still don't understand why single mothers are so demonised in USian culture. I think it has something to do with the calvinist/capitalist work ethic meme, but I don't know.

Weren't nuclear families basically a 20th century invention anyway? I mean before the 1900s we didn't have good healthcare and hardly any cures for stuff, so wouldn't it have been quite common for single parents (and even siblings) to raise children? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I thought.

Anyway...
Single women wiht children is hardly the cause of social decline. If you ask me, people like this idiot are the cause. Not gay couples, not single mothers.

We had large extended families at that time - so even if the man ran off, there were plenty of people around to help raise the children.

The isolated nuclear family is an Ozzie and Harriet wish...

That's an excellent idea, and something I've seen many single mothers do.

Exactly. I've yet to meet a welfare bum. And I've yet to meet a single mother who wasn't supporting her child or children, at least in the main through her own wages.

But hey...it's so awesome to villanize people. Without scapegoats, where would we be?

One of my favorite things a developer I work with says is this: Public perception is reality. It might not be the truth, but it is reality. My weekday job is downtown development (broadly), and I see this at play on a daily basis.

That's an excellent idea, and something I've seen many single mothers do.

Exactly. I've yet to meet a welfare bum. And I've yet to meet a single mother who wasn't supporting her child or children, at least in the main through her own wages.

But hey...it's so awesome to villanize people. Without scapegoats, where would we be?

A place where we're held accountable for our own actions.

I would support a welfare program that got people working as quickly as possible, even for single mothers. The trouble is that many of the single mothers who are most reliant on welfare are also women who became pregnant during their teenage years, and so their education may be minimal.

So, one option may be to provide free education for single mothers on welfare until they have completed their high school education. After this, some sort of vocational training could take place in order to give these women some marketable skills. At this point, they would only need wlefare until they got a job, which should only take a few weeks, at that point. This has the added advantage of ensuring that the children do not grow up in poverty, thereby breaking the cycle of endemic poverty, if such a cycle exists.

A system of bursaries and student loans could be used in place of a vocational education for those women who wish to follow university careers. I do not believe that women should be working if they are single parents pursuing a university degree. No one asks men to raise children, go to school full time, and work part time, all at the same time.

This is all assuming that the child(ren) are old enough to go to school during the day while the mother goes to school. If this is not the case, I would suggest that welfare pay for daycare in those areas where subsidised daycare is unavailable.

I still don't understand why single mothers are so demonised in USian culture. I think it has something to do with the calvinist/capitalist work ethic meme, but I don't know.

This has got to be one of the more intelligent things I've read on NSG in a while.

This would be an example of an excellent use of welfare. Welfare is meant to assist those in need.

Most people would go for something like this if it is presented as an investment and shown to make a person into an asset of the economy because they are marketable in their own way.

Better yet, if the government wanted to reduced the number of people overall on welfare, it should begun by investing more in education to make it more widely accessible at the post-secondary level, whether academic (in a university or college) or trade (vocation or a variation thereof). It should also be progressive to the point that they give students more options in their secondary education years.

If people have options, they can do what they really want.

I know people who wanted to drop out of school because they aren't academic minded, but if there were alternatives, they might have stayed in.

We had large extended families at that time - so even if the man ran off, there were plenty of people around to help raise the children.

The isolated nuclear family is an Ozzie and Harriet wish...

...who?

We had large extended families at that time - so even if the man ran off, there were plenty of people around to help raise the children.
Back on the homestead out I built out of sod with my own two hands.

Back on the homestead out I built out of sod with my own two hands.

Pfff. Sod? Sod? We didn't even have sod. I had to build my home out of dried buffalo feces. O'course, back then no one ran away from a marriage… why risk having to build your own buffalo feces hut if you can inherit one?

Uhh...what exactly is the date on that article?

Ah, single mothers, bringing those who hate the poor and those who hate sex together.

Ah, single mothers, bringing those who hate the poor and those who hate sex together.

That sounds like something an ad campaign could use: "Support single mothers: bringing those who hate the poor and those who hate sex together."

That sounds like something an ad campaign could use: "Support single mothers: bringing those who hate the poor and those who hate sex together."

That reminds me of a T-shirt....

So when a man abandons the woman he's had a child with out of wedlock, the woman should be punished.


Hold on...I'm gonna have to object. What if it was in wedlock, but the woman filed for divorce? What if it was out of wedlock, but the woman left? What if it was out of wedlock or in wedlock and the man died?

I apologize for this tangent. I just get annoyed whenever people act like single mothers are always some ebil man's fault.

If she's working a crappy job, then she should get on welfare while she goes to school. That's one of the things welfare should be used for.

Indeed. In fact, I would even argue that the welfare system itself should either institute or support job training, classes on resume writing, job placement, etc.

Unwed pregnancy is "wrong?" Good lord.

Indeed. In fact, I would even argue that the welfare system itself should either institute or support job training, classes on resume writing, job placement, etc.

I think they offer all those here

I think they offer all those here

What's the waiting list like for those? I know in Montreal that those classes are few and far between compared to the number of people wishing to take them.

Yeah perfect sense /sarcasm

Your going to penalize someone who is making it on their own without help. Causing them to be unable to support themselves and thus needing help that they didn't need in the first place.......

I would support a welfare program that got people working as quickly as possible, even for single mothers. The trouble is that many of the single mothers who are most reliant on welfare are also women who became pregnant during their teenage years, and so their education may be minimal.

So, one option may be to provide free education for single mothers on welfare until they have completed their high school education. After this, some sort of vocational training could take place in order to give these women some marketable skills. At this point, they would only need wlefare until they got a job, which should only take a few weeks, at that point. This has the added advantage of ensuring that the children do not grow up in poverty, thereby breaking the cycle of endemic poverty, if such a cycle exists.

A system of bursaries and student loans could be used in place of a vocational education for those women who wish to follow university careers. I do not believe that women should be working if they are single parents pursuing a university degree. No one asks men to raise children, go to school full time, and work part time, all at the same time.

This is all assuming that the child(ren) are old enough to go to school during the day while the mother goes to school. If this is not the case, I would suggest that welfare pay for daycare in those areas where subsidised daycare is unavailable.

I still don't understand why single mothers are so demonised in USian culture. I think it has something to do with the calvinist/capitalist work ethic meme, but I don't know.

A welfare program I could actually support. The only thing I would ad is mandatory birth control. If you can't support the kids you have you don't need more.

Single motherhood already is 'punishment' of a sorts. What punishment are they talking about? Does it involve leather and stilleto heels? Then I may be in...

Men who father children out of wedlock are already punished - it has done little to stem the rate of bastard children.

I understand the desire to reduce single parent households and increase marriage. It is proven that married households are less likely to live in poverty and there is evidence that a stable family is more likely to raise mentally and physically healthier children.

The trick is trying to figure out just HOW to increase the rate of people putting procreation off until marriage and then staying married. Frankly I think that tax incentives and lipservice from Washington, Hollywood and other leaders do very little. I think that it would make considerable sense to teach in schools how to select a life partner. Teaching young adults how to discriminate the attributes which make for a good and compatible mate against the attributes which just make them horney and googly-eyed for a few months. I would say that is at least as important as birth control in family planning. Afterall - it is FAMILY planning - not children planning.

Sadly there are many negative influences which play to the more basic instincts of people. Many young people do not have an adequate role model in their life to teach them to discriminate good from bad. Boys get the quick-score music, loccer-room chat and porn. Girls get the sleazy women's magazines and soap operas. For many these are their only examples of inter-personal relations. No wonder so many people are fucked-up.

What's the waiting list like for those? I know in Montreal that those classes are few and far between compared to the number of people wishing to take them.

I've no idea. I'm just aware they're in place. Luckily i'm a student so I have a more socially acceptable form of unemployment ;)

Single motherhood already is 'punishment' of a sorts. What punishment are they talking about? Does it involve leather and stilleto heels? Then I may be in...

Don't be silly! That's what got them in trouble in the first place...

hehe

Pfff. Sod? Sod? We didn't even have sod. I had to build my home out of dried buffalo feces. O'course, back then no one ran away from a marriage… why risk having to build your own buffalo feces hut if you can inherit one?

Buffalo feces? We'd be glad to have buffalo feces. We had to flay ourselves alive and make tents out of our own skins. And every day they got eaten by wild boar, so we had to make them the next day. And if we didn't grow our skin back in time, well, we just had to live in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, because we couldn't even afford to do live on the land.

Don't be silly! That's what got them in trouble in the first place...

hehe

You see, this is why NSGers would not make good stand up comedians. Laughing at their own jokes, and saying things that would get them thrown out.

I'll laugh. R-R-R

We all know that single mothers are just sleazy sluts with no capacity for morality and are seeking to destroy the fabric of American society. And we all know what the fabric of American society is, right?

We all know that single mothers are just sleazy sluts with no capacity for morality and are seeking to destroy the fabric of American society. And we all know what the fabric of American society is, right?

Cotton?

Cotton?

I think it's polyester.

I think it's polyester.

No no no it's definitely spandex

No no no it's definitely spandex

No, it's a very small amount of black leather, applied strategically.

No, it's a very small amount of black leather, applied strategically.

Hmmmm the US is sounding better and better ;)

Hmmmm the US is sounding better and better ;)

If you like the fabric, wait until you see the fiber.

Yes, I'm aware that leather doesn't really have 'fibers' in the sense of fabrics. That's the joke.

We all know that single mothers are just sleazy sluts with no capacity for morality and are seeking to destroy the fabric of American society. And we all know what the fabric of American society is, right?

You say slut like it is a bad thing. Frankly, I like sluts. I wish more women were sluts. There are a few in particular I have in mind... mmmmm.

You say slut like it is a bad thing. Frankly, I like sluts. I wish more women were sluts. There are a few in particular I have in mind... mmmmm.

So...Not only have you previously advocated foolish views and made poor arguments, you're now adding sexism to your repertoire.

My respect for you is just growing by leaps and bounds.

But hey...it's so awesome to villanize people. Without scapegoats, where would we be?

Not on this thread?

No, it's a very small amount of black leather, applied strategically.

No no it's fur! Umm or is it swead?

So...Not only have you previously advocated foolish views and made poor arguments, you're now adding sexism to your repertoire.

My respect for you is just growing by leaps and bounds.

Sorry it is now sexist to admit that one likes members of the oppostie sex who like sex?!?!

No no it's fur! Umm or is it swead?

Fur is murder! :p

Lol, it's kinda ironic the article is from an Australian site, the country is which over half of marriages are destined to fail, I put forward a motion for the next fundy to preach the infallibility of the atomic family to be shot:)

Sorry it is now sexist to admit that one likes members of the oppostie sex who like sex?!?!

My thoughts exactly... nothing wrong with sluts.

Lol, it's kinda ironic the article is from an Australian site, the country is which over half of marriages are destined to fail, I put forward a motion for the next fundy to preach the infallibility of the atomic family to be shot:)

Errr.... You want capital punishment?

Fur is murder! :p

Are you sure? I always thougth that was meat?:eek:

Errr.... You want capital punishment?

Only for conservatives.

Are you sure? I always thougth that was meat?:eek:

It was. We can now grow in vitro meat! Well, research facillities can grow it. No actual industrial level production is happening...

A welfare program I could actually support. The only thing I would ad is mandatory birth control. If you can't support the kids you have you don't need more.

Mandatory birth control implies removing a woman's reproductive rights. I do not think doing so is legal in Australia, nor should it be. A woman's body is hers to do with as she sees fit.

Why should I have to support someone who slept with a jerk, didn't use adequate protection, and had a kid. If you penalize single mothers maybe they'll pick their partners a little better.

Why should I have to support someone who slept with a jerk, didn't use adequate protection, and had a kid. If you penalize single mothers maybe they'll pick their partners a little better.

lol srsly?

Hooray for punishment of the victim.

Why should I have to support someone who slept with a jerk, didn't use adequate protection, and had a kid. If you penalize single mothers maybe they'll pick their partners a little better.

You forget about the single mothers that were raped

Or the single mothers who's husband left

Or windowed single mothers

You seem like the jerk

Yes, I did a double-take too when I read that...



So when a man abandons the woman he's had a child with out of wedlock, the woman should be punished. Riiiight... And here was me thinking this was the 21st century.

(Article (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21975211-5013172,00.html))

Uh no, how about we find all the men and try punishing the men and at some point, if the woman continues to have children without trying to better herself then some kind of consequences should follow. But truly, it is both a man's and a woman's responsiblity to care for the children that THEY brought into the world.

Why should I have to support someone who slept with a jerk, didn't use adequate protection, and had a kid. If you penalize single mothers maybe they'll pick their partners a little better.

If you penalize single mother's they are going to have a rougher time and need MORE support. So why do something that might cause them to need more of that support just to try and get them to stay off of it?

Lets not forget all the other scenarios of single motherhood. (divorce, death, etc.)

Why should I have to support someone who slept with a jerk, didn't use adequate protection, and had a kid. If you penalize single mothers maybe they'll pick their partners a little better.
And we have a candidate for involuntary, front-line military service.

Not to mention a good example of why people should have to pass a simple issues test before being allowed to vote.

If you penalize single mother's they are going to have a rougher time and need MORE support. So why do something that might cause them to need more of that support just to try and get them to stay off of it?

That's how "compassionate" conservatism works - kick 'em while their down. Some one needs more help so they are leaning more on the very few social services we have? Increase taxes on them, forcing them to give up even more money than they already can't make will teach them not to be a burden on society.

Increase taxes on them, forcing them to give up even more money than they already can't make will teach them not to be a burden on society.

Yeh that'll learn em alright!

Why should I have to support someone who slept with a jerk, didn't use adequate protection, and had a kid. If you penalize single mothers maybe they'll pick their partners a little better.

What about the women who were married then divorced?

Those who are widowed?

Those who were abandoned?

Those who were raped?

There are many other scenarios. Too bad your so naive, otherwise you'd be be able to see the bigger picture.

What about the women who were married then divorced?

Those who are widowed?

Those who were abandoned?

Those who were raped?

There are many other scenarios. Too bad your so naive, otherwise you'd be be able to see the bigger picture.

You sound kind of like me

You sound kind of like me
Well, I hate people who have a one-track mind; the type that seem to think that if a woman is single and has a kid that she is somehow a shameless hussy.

Yes, I did a double-take too when I read that...



So when a man abandons the woman he's had a child with out of wedlock, the woman should be punished. Riiiight... And here was me thinking this was the 21st century.

(Article (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21975211-5013172,00.html))

The problem is my friend this is the 21 century, the 20th Century saw the rise and dramatic fall of Socialist societies, and thinking, too dramatic if I AM asked, if things were too Socialist in the 20th Century they are too Neo lIberal
now, I would be very happy if the pendulum swung back a wee bit this sort of scrooge society has gone on too long and too far.:upyours:

The problem with single women is that they arn't rich old white men, then they wouldn't have any problems.
The US' fanatical focus on morality leads to this kind of crap.
agreed and it also leads to alienated loners buying guns and shooting people on college campus's god bless the yanks they have the right own guns but will let women and children starve, leaders of the "free" world.

What about?

Rape: Take it through the court system

Abandoned: He was a jerk

Divorced: He was a jerk

Death: Life insurance

Naive: Sure.

Rape: Take it through the court system So a woman will ALWAYS go through a crappy and broken legal system. I see.
Abandoned: He was a jerk And took everything? Definitely a jerk.
Divorced: He was a jerk He should still pay child support so the mother at least can support her kids.
Death: Life insurance Yes, because insurance is always cheap. Of course.
Naive: Sure. NAIVE PRIDE, BABY!

Mandatory birth control implies removing a woman's reproductive rights. I do not think doing so is legal in Australia, nor should it be. A woman's body is hers to do with as she sees fit.

I think he was referring to making birth control mandatory if you want the government to support you. In other words, you can stay off birth control and find a way to support yourself, or you can go on it and get government assistance. At that point, the question of whether it infringes on anyone's rights gets a bit fuzzier - and begins to depend on whether or not you think receiving money from the government is a right.

It's already been done under Clinton and it worked.

"A reversal of these policies in the 1990s, the enforcement of existing laws and the restoration of the family had been the best way to tackle long-term poverty, he said.

Professor Mead, who has written extensively on welfare-to-work polices, was one of the intellectual driving forces behind the reforms introduced during the administration of president Bill Clinton in the 1990s. During the period, long-term unemployment declined and crime rates fell across US cities."correlation =/= causation. We were in an economic boom, which would have caused lower unemployment and lower crime rates. That has little to nothing to do with welfare, except for helping to ease the need for it.



"In America, research has shown it was not lack of jobs or childcare that kept people out of the workforce, but that welfare itself discouraged people from working. That's one reason why welfare and other societal problems such as crime all got much worse in the 1960s and 1970s. "




Now i'm not saying I entirely agree with him, but his underlying principles about work against welfare are totally correct.
Show us this research. I've yet to see it.


The problem with things like this is that it scapegoats. Yes, unwed mothers are the cause of all social ills. They are ruining our society.

Except the "family" is a social construct and does not exist.

And what could be better than requiring women to choose between being in an abusive relationship, but being able to feed their child or being safe, but not being able to give their child basic necessities. And yes, let's punish moms for the fact that there are deadbeat dads out there.

How about lesbian couples? As they cannot legally wed in many places, they are technically "single mothers"...they might have joint custody of the child, but both are still unwed.

That's how "compassionate" conservatism works - kick 'em while their down. Some one needs more help so they are leaning more on the very few social services we have? Increase taxes on them, forcing them to give up even more money than they already can't make will teach them not to be a burden on society.

And lets not forget that it will also punish the single mothers that do not need to rely on welfare support.

And lets not forget that it will also punish the single mothers that do not need to rely on welfare support.

Need to rely on welfare support? Burdens on the system, they are obviously lazy good for nothings and should be taxed more so they have to go find work.

I don't know why everyone is bitching.

Single mothers are punished. It's hard to raise children by yourself.

It's funny to hear certain people talk of motherhood with such reverence and yet turn around and basically declare it a liability for business.

My mom was one of those who "should" have been punished.

She was.

Raising me and my sister on her own was punishment! :D

I think he was referring to making birth control mandatory if you want the government to support you. In other words, you can stay off birth control and find a way to support yourself, or you can go on it and get government assistance. At that point, the question of whether it infringes on anyone's rights gets a bit fuzzier - and begins to depend on whether or not you think receiving money from the government is a right.

Even ignoring the questionable morality behind such a position, that seems unenforceable to me.

Unless you force women to get the contraceptive injections, but that may also be illegal for the government to do.

I think free access to birth control classes and birth control would be easier to implement and provide better results.

Need to rely on welfare support? Burdens on the system, they are obviously lazy good for nothings and should be taxed more so they have to go find work.

I said the ones that DON'T need it. And the people that think that welfare is only for the people that don't work (and thusly say they are lazy bums) need to read up. There are different types of the program.

Why should I have to support someone who slept with a jerk, didn't use adequate protection, and had a kid. If you penalize single mothers maybe they'll pick their partners a little better.

we dont support single mothers.

having a baby is no reason to collect a check from the state (although it may be in some countries with a low birth rate)

we support the children of the poor so that they have the opportunity to grow up happy and healthy. its a small investment now for a big payout later.

I think he was referring to making birth control mandatory if you want the government to support you. In other words, you can stay off birth control and find a way to support yourself, or you can go on it and get government assistance. At that point, the question of whether it infringes on anyone's rights gets a bit fuzzier - and begins to depend on whether or not you think receiving money from the government is a right.
Even ignoring the questionable morality behind such a position, that seems unenforceable to me.

Unless you force women to get the contraceptive injections, but that may also be illegal for the government to do.

I think free access to birth control classes and birth control would be easier to implement and provide better results.

Dem has it right. As for whether the govt is allowed to do it, think of it like this "My house, My rules" Basically if you want the welfare check then there are certain requirements in order to receive it. One of them is mandatory contraceptive injections. Its provided for free but you must get the shot in order to be eligible for support.

Even ignoring the questionable morality behind such a position, that seems unenforceable to me.

Unless you force women to get the contraceptive injections, but that may also be illegal for the government to do.

Some programs require welfare recipients to provide proof that they were working/looking for work, etc. I would assume this would be about the same. You obviously couldn't force a pill down a woman's throat every day or something like that.

I think free access to birth control classes and birth control would be easier to implement and provide better results.

In most cases, this is probably true.


Dem has it right. As for whether the govt is allowed to do it, think of it like this "My house, My rules" Basically if you want the welfare check then there are certain requirements in order to receive it. One of them is mandatory contraceptive injections. Its provided for free but you must get the shot in order to be eligible for support.

What if a woman's doctor has stated that those injections would not be a healthy choice for her? Does this mean she can't get assistance?

What if a woman's doctor has stated that those injections would not be a healthy choice for her? Does this mean she can't get assistance?

Then use some other means of Birth Control. Birth control should just be a requirement of welfare. Why should they be allowed to continue having kids that they can't support?

now hold on, this has a little logic behind it. but not much.

i know of few examples from real life friends who got their girlfriends pregnant. now they were very willing to live with their child and the child's mother and even get married. but some figured that if they didn't do so the mother has the ability to go to school for free and also get kickbacks from the government such as health care for them and their child.

Dem has it right. As for whether the govt is allowed to do it, think of it like this "My house, My rules" Basically if you want the welfare check then there are certain requirements in order to receive it. One of them is mandatory contraceptive injections. Its provided for free but you must get the shot in order to be eligible for support.

But that's socialism!

Sorry it is now sexist to admit that one likes members of the oppostie sex who like sex?!?!

Sexually objectifying people? Not exactly the most progressive view.

But, eh, you're right. It's probably more likely to say "perversion" than "sexism".

I just thought "perversion" was probably more likely to be considered a flame.