|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 16, @02:48PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
This is one of the silliest , most useless essays I have ever read. He gets things half-right at best. Wilson blames men for not getting married -- its all about sex, not responsibility for them. He indirectly touches on the real reasons many men don't marry -- the divorce culture and its attendant financial and emotional hardships. But he goes nowhere with it, and ends up in the end blaming the male sex drive. He talks about the "welfare incentive" for many POOR (take note, Lorianne) women, but has no solutions for it.
Of course Wilson - dispite being called "brilliant" etc. by many neo-conservatives- never has struck me as anywhere near as bright as he is reactionary. His "Bell Curve" was an example of misuse of statistics, that led me to doubt his character for quite the longest of times.
But my biggest problem with Wilson is what you see here- even when I agree with him ( maybe 40 percent of the time) his analysis is often very incomplete. What is more frustrating is that he usually has little in the way of prosecriptions for the problems he illuminates. At least his print articles strike me as being this way. I've really only read one of his books, and you can guess which one.
He's one of those "cultural" conservatives, and thus very good at pi**ing off the progressive/commie elements, and I like that. I just wish this article had been more useful.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remo___ I did take note you can be sure. And he spends 80% of the article demonizing women and 20% demonizing men. And you're right, he does not offer any solutions, save re-stigmatizing unmarried pregnant women (never mentions stigmantizing the men). Geez, that's original.
I must say again, all this talk of pregnancy and OOW births and single mothers misses the POINT. Once there IS a pregnancy, the problem is already there. What he and zillions of other "pundits" propose is demonizing the phsiological state of pregnancy, not the means of getting there. (An anology would be stigmatizing lung cancer, but not smoking). This is very very convenient since only 1/2 of the population is left out of this equation. It is always handy to have a limited easily distinguishable group to scapegoat (like the Jews in Nazi Germany) and blame all social ills on. Same sh@t, different century.
Are you disheartened that he mentioned men AT ALL as being part of the problem? I'm not into the blame game as he is, but once they go down that path, I will ALWAYS throw Biology 101 in their face. These babies didn't arrive on a spaceship or by mail order.
There is no such thing as a single mother alone, in a vacuum. For every single mother there is a single father. What the article does is blame the act of being in physical custody of a child and demonize that act alone, separate from all other factors that lead to it. And then he pretns to be discussing the problem and how to remedy it. He barely even mentions men until the last 1/4 of the article. Until then you have no idea how these kids came into being or that the mothers didn't reproduce by parthenogenesis.
We agree on one thing Remo, stupid useless article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 16, @09:31PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Remo___ I did take note you can be sure. And he spends 80% of the article demonizing women and 20% demonizing men. And you're right, he does not offer any solutions, save re-stigmatizing unmarried pregnant women (never mentions stigmantizing the men). Geez, that's original.
Lorianne, I only asked you to take note because you once doubted that welfare policy could possibly have any part in producing unmarried mothers. Now, maybe I'm wrong, but it occurs to me that you think that way because you are middle class, and the amount of money that CP's can get from welfare a month seems small to you. To some women it is not so small , and more important it is a steady source of income, with fringe benefits (foodstamps, section 8, medicaid) included.
I wouldn't stop welfare, but I would definately make it financially more worthwhile to bring a father into the family. We've used a carrot approach for quite some time, now we should include the stick as well.
You say:
I must say again, all this talk of pregnancy and OOW births and single mothers misses the POINT. Once there IS a pregnancy, the problem is already there. What he and zillions of other "pundits" propose is demonizing the phsiological state of pregnancy, not the means of getting there. (An anology would be stigmatizing lung cancer, but not smoking). This is very very convenient since only 1/2 of the population is left out of this equation. It is always handy to have a limited easily distinguishable group to scapegoat (like the Jews in Nazi Germany) and blame all social ills on. Same sh@t, different century.
Are you disheartened that he mentioned men AT ALL as being part of the problem? I'm not into the blame game as he is, but once they go down that path, I will ALWAYS throw Biology 101 in their face. These babies didn't arrive on a spaceship or by mail order.
I say:
I don't deny that there are irresponsible men out there. But men's "sex-drive" is not part of the problem. You could solve most men's "sex-drive" problems simply by legalizing and regulating prostitution.Not to mention quite a few women would make out quite handsomely in terms of renumeration. But guess what? The majority of men would want to get married even then!
We don't want a wife for sex alone, we want to marry a woman we love. But why marry a woman who can dissolve your marriage and take half ( or more) of your income with a snap of her fingers, if you are stupid enough to have a child? Not to mention if she does divorce you, she'll probably get the kids, and you will be lucky to get decent visitation. There's no disincentives for women to dissolve a marriage anymore, Lorianne. And THAT is why marriage rates are declining as they have been for most of 30 years. Last but not least, please don't accuse me of being unhappy when anyone accuses men of being bad fathers. I had a bad, irresponsible father myself. And I had a wonderful pair of grandfathers and grandmothers.
On another note,I was really pleasantly surprised today. I read in the Maryland Gazette that the States Court of Appeals (its highest court) ruled that a man who was DNA tested and found not to be the father , did not have any responsiblity to pay past-due child support. The specifics of the case was this:
The man and woman had a relationship for awhile. When she was pregnant, she told him she had not had sex with any other man around the time of the conception. Believing her, he signed a paternity order. However, he learned from some relatives of hers that she had an affair with another man, around the times she claimed she didn't. Suspicious, he got DNA tested, and it came back negative.
Originally, an appeals court at a lower level found him to owe 7 years of back child support. However, the state Supreme Court (with its newest member a woman) overturned the lower courts decision. The Lady Justice said the State risked losing credibility if it enforced erroneous child support obligations. I'm glad the Court didn't hold with some other State's courts and make the man responsible for a child that wasn't his.
Well, thats all for tonight. Be well, and peaceful in your island paradise :)
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 16, @09:41PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Ack! Court of Appeals= State Supreme Court. Also, I should be consistent in capitalizing or not capitalizing "state". And I know I forgot an apostrophe here and there. I really must try to proof-read my words more often :(
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
____"I only asked you to take note because you once doubted that welfare policy could possibly have any part in producing unmarried mothers."
Ok, I'm going to give you the benifit of the doubt and try to ignore the baseline premis implied in this sentence that unmarried mothers can become that way of their own volition, without the participation of a man.
I am undecided on this premis. There are many cause of OOW conception. Perhaps the welfare provided acts as an incentive, but I'm unconvinced. Here's why. I've travelled in a lot of places where there is no welfare, no social safety net whatsoever, and illigitimacy and poverty and overpopulation among those least able to feed their kids is rampant. Now I'm making an underlying presumption that no one wants to watch their kid starve to death or be mistreated .... so why do people reproduce when there is no social saftey net, no welfare, and great stigmitization against "bastard" children? I can't square that with the presumption that welfare increases illigitimacy and unsustainable reproduction. If this were true, the reverse would be true no? .... I'm still thinking on this one.
____I wouldn't stop welfare, but I would definately make it financially more worthwhile to bring a father into the family. We've used a carrot approach for quite some time, now we should include the stick as well.
Yes. The way to begin to end welfare is to require that both parents are legally responsible to provide for the children they co-create. The problem then becomes one of enforcement, not a quessing game or a blame game. Everyone would know up front that kid = obligation and will be equally enforced.
I've though of creating a welfare ledger of sorts. With every AFDC dollar that goes out, create a debit account for the parents, split equally. Then perhaps set up a system of merits and demerits to work off the "debt" to the child. One of the merits would simply to be present and accounted for, checking in. Another would be for providing for the kids in some way, buying clothes etc. Another is finishing an educatinal or job training program. Another for holding down a job. Each thing deducts from the red portion of the ledger until you get in the black. Granted, my idea is not totally thought out, but something like this.
Now there would have to be a lower level where a person goes too far into debt and some sort of punishment would be appropriate.
Granted, my idea is not totally thought out, but something like this I believe would be a huge leap in the right direction.
___ "..... there are many irresponsible men out there. But men's "sex-drive" is not part of the problem."
I agree. Nor is women's sex drive. The problem is unaccountabilty. With sex comes risk. I don't believe you can ask for one person to take all the risks associated with sex. (I don't believe you can ask for anything in life to be 100% risk free). It has to be 100% equal. Since there is no 100% gaurantee against conception, there is always a small risk (equal to both parties, not one) of conception taking place. We need to emphasize that.
The only way I can see to do this is to create a
____"But why marry a woman who can dissolve your marriage and take half ( or more) of your income with a snap of her fingers, if you are stupid enough to have a child?"
Yes. This is why I advocate joint physical custody default and 50/50 CS obligation, even in non-marriage situations. The custody laws definitely need a lot of reworking.
____" You could solve most men's "sex-drive" problems simply by legalizing and regulating prostitution.
Whoa there! I am for decriminalizing prostitution, but not to service men's sex drive. Actually, finding a safe, reliable, reversible vasectomy technique would do more to resolve the sex drive issue than legalized prostitution ever would. I believe men with vasectomies could market themselves and get as more sex than they could possibly handle, for free! If even 50% of men had vasectomies, prostitutes would be out of business :)
____ "On another note,I was really pleasantly surprised today. I read in the Maryland Gazette that the States Court of Appeals (its highest court) ruled that a man who was DNA tested and found not to be the father , did not have any responsiblity to pay past-due child support.
This is such a "duh?" concept. With the DNA technology we have today there is no reason why any man should not avail himself of it. In fact, I'd support government subsidy of DNA testing. And I'm not a big government person. I think the payoff would be a reducuction in welfare since a documented father for every baby would be available. Just being on the rolls in goverement, documented as a father or a mother would produce an impetus itself towards being responsible.
I also believe every baby deserves to know unequivocally who his biological father and mother are. (In the case of adoption, that information should be available at age 18).
I'd like to see a DNA paternity test done at birth as a matter of course, even in married situations. I know some people are opposed to this. So for them the putative father can decline and signs on as father without the test (though I don't know why ANY man would do this). If the test was mandatory unless a waiver is signed, then there would be no issues of the man doubting the woman unnecessarily. The test would be done as standard procedure, kind of like the STD tests done before marriage, so no one has to ask for it and create an uncomfortable situation.
To get a birth certificate, you'd need a real bona fide father. To get welfare you need a birth certificate with a documented or co-signed father included. I'm unsure of all the practical enforcement of this but you get the main concept. No more anonymous parents.
I'm sure with some work we could get the welfare rolls and the so called "fatherless" children rolls down. We need some tough and creative, but fair solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 17, @07:21PM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
I am undecided on this premis. There are many cause of OOW conception. Perhaps the welfare provided acts as an incentive, but I'm unconvinced. Here's why. I've travelled in a lot of places where there is no welfare, no social safety net whatsoever, and illigitimacy and poverty and overpopulation among those least able to feed their kids is rampant. Now I'm making an underlying presumption that no one wants to watch their kid starve to death or be mistreated .... so why do people reproduce when there is no social saftey net, no welfare, and great stigmitization against "bastard" children? I can't square that with the presumption that welfare increases illigitimacy and unsustainable reproduction. If this were true, the reverse would be true no? .... I'm still thinking on this one.
I'll list several reasons people reproduce when there seems to be little or no incentive to do so:
A. Culture. Many of those places are tribal, and individual choice is not so important when you want to continue your family or tribal structure, and keep the property you control. (whether or not y ou own it)
B. Simple. Lack of contraceptives or indeed contraceptive education. Could be due to religious influence, or simple poverty breeding illiteracy, breeding ignorance.
C. Religion. Not only does it often discourage people from using or even knowing about contraceptives, but it also often encourages fertility.
D. Self-identity. Not only do many teen mothers lack self-esteem (and thus need a baby to make them a mother, and hence worthy of respect) but many poor women as well.
E. Economic. Have the kids to sell them, or rent them.
F. Love. When men and women get together they often decide to do stupid things. Perhaps they weren't thinking or the area fell into civil war.
G. Accident. Self-explanatory.
And last and probably most importantly:
Instinct. One of the most basic drives is the sex drive. People like to deny it, and degrade it, but lets not underestimate the simple power of our genes and hormones.
Anyway, the advanced "demacracies" often give their women even more incentives then the above to become mothers, with welfare being one of them. I say we stop doing it. Make child-birth cost unmarried women something, and you can bet they'd all be chasing after the NCP, instead of how things are now. Now, lots of them either have more babies to get more welfare, or they take male boyfriends/sex partners instead of husbands, use contraceptives, and get lots of under the table gifts, all tax-free and taxpayer financed. Great racket if you can get it.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 17, @07:26PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Demacracies= Democracies.
I've just disgraced my family name for generations to come. :( I'm glad you don't know it.
Rotten spelling Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Culture and religion play a role in our societies as well. Also, it is not often mentioned but in many cultures males wish to have babies too in order to prove their manhood or vilility. Having a OOW child is a badge of honor among men in some low income cultures.
____Anyway, the advanced "demacracies" often give their women even more incentives then the above to become mothers, with welfare being one of them. I say we stop doing it.
Women cannot conceive without the participation of men. I say they play a part in the "stop doing it" proposal.
___"Make child-birth cost unmarried women something, and you can bet they'd all be chasing after the NCP..."
This is an disincentive approach. If we are going to make OOW "child-birth" a crime, we should just go ahead and do that. Write up the legislation.
Otherwise, we could create disincentives to BOTH parents to procreate, not for just one. By focussing only on women, you've already lost half the battle. This unilateral approach has been tried for hundreds of of years. It hasn't worked.
Also, it is unfair. The only way to achieve such a plan is to make women, or pregnant women, lesser level citizens so that we can strip them of some of the rights fo full citizens and control them and their bodies.
Also, making child-birth "cost" somehthing, will cost not just the women, but children too, and eventually will cost all of us a lot more than simply preventing conception. This is were the incentivizing should be applied. Before the fact. Because after the fact, you have to target only the one who is gestating the child. See above. This is an animal husbandry approach, not a human approach to the problem of OOW conception.
Also it is arbitrary. If we are only concerned with results, then the ends justify the means. If this is so, then we can abrogate anyone's rights, so it could just as well be men's as women's. It's all arbirary. We could simply decide to make men pay the "costs" and let them chase down the women to get payment. Why not? Or we could have government mandated control over men's bodies instead of women's, say forced vasectomies or something.
I think with incentive/disincentive programs (which I favor) we have to be careful not to arbitrarily sanction only one sex or abrogate their rights in an "ends justify the means" scheme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 17, @08:43PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
I think with incentive/disincentive programs (which I favor) we have to be careful not to arbitrarily sanction only one sex or abrogate their rights in an "ends justify the means" scheme.
Boy, are you blind! Just what do you think they are going to do to the NCP if /when they find him? (most ot the time, HIM) You know the drill by now, Lorianne. Garnish this, garnish that, stick him in jail if he can't pay, make visitation hard on him, etc. After all, I never talked about reforming anything else, just tried to give the CP some disincentives to be unmarried and/or without a support order. Its amazing you could believe that only the CP was being punished in this situation.
I agree with most of the rest of your post, Lorianne, but you seemed to forget I wasn't talking about a "reformed system" (say presumed joint custody) but only the so called system as its currently set up. Right now, it pretty much only screws men. It would be fitting to let it screw women, too. And then we could watch the birthrate plummet more.
Of course then, as Claire could tell you, the Government wouldn't just open the borders. It would dig holes to China, and smuggle people in to get more subjects-- er, I meant citizens, I really did (G) .
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought it was an interesting article which touched on some of the reasons for the decline in marriage. Unlike another poster, I saw nothing in it which stigmatized women; the second last paragraph certainly stigmatizes men.
You're right: he makes no prescription. Is that a bad thing? an accurate description of the problem and an analysis of it's causes should come before prescriptions. Once that has been accomplished the prescription will often be latent in the analysis. Sometimes it is better to let the reader find them for himself.
His remarks about the benefits of marriage to men merely echo feminist advocacy research. Such studies rarely take into account either the costs to men of divorce or the fact that richer, healthier men are more attractive marriage partners. viz a guy may not marry because he is poor and unhealthy rather than his poverty and ill health being due to his single status.
It's obvious that paying women who have children out of wedlock encourages them to do so. It's a sad comment that saying so may be his biggest contribution.
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_____It's obvious that paying women who have children out of wedlock encourages them to do so.
Actually we are paying both MEN and women to have children out of wedlock. Welfare to children subsidizes the obligation of either or both parents who abdicate their obligation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 17, @02:53PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Actually we are paying both MEN and women to have children out of wedlock. Welfare to children subsidizes the obligation of either or both parents who abdicate their obligation.
Lorianne,
Thank you for your nice reply earlier. In this case, however, I do feel compelled to point out that gen-fem's often see Single Female Headed Households as a sign of empowerment for women. Don't need those nasty, brutish ol men around. Kick him out, and take custody if he gives you any trouble. Sure, take his money (if he has any) if you can, but if not Government can be your partner regardless. Check out Trish Wilson's website(s) and the NOW website, as well as just about any radical lesbian site if you don't believe me.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the father is the biological father he SHOULD pay for his son or daughter. This subsidizes no one. If he (or the mom) doesn't pay for their own kids, it is the TAXPAYERS who subsidize the father, the mother or both parents.
Hint: Despite what you may have been told as a child, babies are not delivered to the mother's doorstep by a stork.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>My personal interest is whether legalizing choice for men would reduce the illegitimacy rate.
In the current situation, no, because the MOOmies would just collect welfare. If we're going to do the C4M thing, we absolutely must get rid of welfare. Otherwise we'll all be paying child support, only it will be called income tax, and we'll pay it our entire working lives for kids that belong to other people.
Why should I be forced to subsidize someone else's mistake?
I had another thought yesterday. A 16-year-old girl can choose to have an abortion OR keep an unwanted kid, but that SAME GIRL cannot choose to have a tubal ligation so that she never ends up involved in an unwanted pregnancy, or never ends up involved in one again. Instead she's told she's "too young to make a decision that will alter her entire life." HUH?? Choosing to keep an unwanted kid at age 16 isn't a decision that will alter her entire life????? If she has the means to pay for the tubal, and has located a doctor willing to perform the procedure, her parents and the gov't should have absolutely no power to stop her. If she has decided that the risk of unwanted pregnancy is too great, she should have every right to choose to sterilize herself so that she never has to take that risk.
This would be of special importance if C4M were legalized. If women have 100% responsibility in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, they should have the right to accept that risk (by not having tubals) or decline the risk (by getting a tubal ligation before they become sexually active, no matter their age, IF that's what they want).
So in my mind we need THREE things to bring down the rate of unwanted children (currently at 56%, according to your website Kingsley):
1) Abolish welfare.
2) Abolish child support.
3) Abolish all laws prohibiting minors and young women from getting themselves surgically sterilized.
I also want to see all child labor and compulsory school attendance laws abolished, so that kids whose parents don't want to provide for them can get jobs and provide for themselves. And if they need to quit school to work enough hours to put food on the table, they should not be stopped from doing so.
The elimination of child support, while a valid goal, to me is only one thread in a tapestry of things we need to put in place. It sickens me that more children are unwanted and unloved by their parents than the other way around. Irresponsible breeding should not be subsidized by the taxpayers. At the same time, responsible women should not be legally prohibited from getting sterilized when they want to. Finally, children should be given more rights in regards to labor AND emancipating themselves from their loser parents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 20, @12:52AM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Claire:
Allow me to respectfully state my disagreements with some of this post of yours.
...............................................
So in my mind we need THREE things to bring down the rate of unwanted children (currently at 56%, according to your website Kingsley):
1) Abolish welfare.
2) Abolish child support.
3) Abolish all laws prohibiting minors and young women from getting themselves surgically sterilized.
I also want to see all child labor and compulsory school attendance laws abolished, so that kids whose parents don't want to provide for them can get jobs and provide for themselves. And if they need to quit school to work enough hours to put food on the table, they should not be stopped from doing so.
...............................................
And I thought you were for liberty? Sounds like any child who has the misfortune to be born to parents who don't want them, should sell themselves out as indentured servants, or sexual slaves. Preferrably for lots of $ from some rich person, if any can be found who want them.
As for your proposals I'd make the following amendments:
1. Abolish welfare. -- Not entirely. Every system needs a safety net, its why we have Unemployment Insurance. Just reform it to facilitate the reunification of families. If you want to discourage kids, simply pay a fixed amount for each child, and make it smaller and smaller as more kids come along.
2. Totally disagree. All parents owe their children something, unless they are tricked or forced into parenthood. However, who says it has to be more than for bare necessities?
3. I'd keep this suggestion. However, one should have maturity to make this decision, so I'd peg it to the age of consent and/or the age for a drivers license.
As for the child labor, I hope you are kidding. Forget the fact that it might be a bad economy, or at least a bad economy for lowskilled or inexperienced labor. At what age? I simply can't see the 4 year olds working in coal mines, unsupervised, to get a bowl of gruel. Nor do I believe society is better off discouraging educatiion for any of its members.
Last but not least, I think something is wrong with C4M's statistics as the claim that 54% of children are unwanted flies in the face of every poll/study I have ever seen, not to mention my personal experience.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 17, @06:14PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Consider Canada. Comprehensive Social Safety Net.
Good universal health care.
Abortion fully funded easily available lots of emotional and moral support for mother-not-to-be is the rule.
Birth rate in alarming decline. So alarming in fact, imigration policy has been changed to reverse the threat of dramatically shrinking population doesn't really work because ...
We have scores of married women in this country who would rather work at Walmart or the supermarket and hire day care than stay at home with the kids.
I say there is a stong element of choice here because the wages are just not that high in these places to be paying for day care, taxes (very very high), a second car(mandatory insurance), working clothes, and other expenses that go along with just holding a job. My point is that there isn't more than at most two or three dollars and hour of disposibal income left.
Add to this the number of displaced men from decades of affirmitive(women) action programs and their having to take lower paying jobs, where are the immigrants going to work?
Our dollar is at US $00.62, and our unemployment is at 8% now.
There are two people who definately benefit from paternity payments and two people only - mom and step-dad.
Canada is a step-father's paradise.
If you want to live with someone, then work your way up the ladder first. Then go-a-hunting in the married-mothers woods.
It is great, a real bounty up here in Canada.
You get to do some daddy stuff and its all paid for by someone else who can be quickly put out of the picture (you know - like if you don't want him around making you look bad) by mom.
So boys get your vasectomies done and c'mon up!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 17, @06:33PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't matter if she leaves Canada, he still has to pay!!!!
What are you guys waiting for?
C'mon up you won't regret it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 17, @06:46PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to be happy
for the rest of your life.
Come to Canada to get your wife
if you want my personal point of view
one of our mothers should marry you.
laalala lala la la laaaaa
laa la laa lalala la la laaaa
laa la la lalala la la laaa
laaaala lala la la laaaa
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like they been improvin' that there Kickapoo Joy Juice up Canada way.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
