'Congress should be ashamed of its economic violence against women'

Submitted by Mastodon on Sat, 2013-10-19 18:30

Article here. Excerpt:

'Violence isn't always physical.

I've said this recently in a work context, though I can't remember the exact circumstances. My full-time job is in social justice research, and violence comes up frequently. It could be about hate crimes, homicides in under-resourced communities as a byproduct of the economic violence imposed on these communities, or a number of other things.

I thought of violence last week when I heard a story on NPR about the government shutdown's effect on low-income women and children. Funding for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, known as WIC, is so low in some states that money could run out in a week. Hearing a woman on the radio talk about her need to feed her children as the prices of basic nutritional food items like fruit, eggs, oatmeal, milk and baby formula keep increasing made me think about how ironic it is that the shutdown started Oct. 1, the first day of National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. I shared the story on Facebook, pointed out the date and added my own commentary: "Denying food to women and children is an act of violence against women. Congress should be ashamed."'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

The shutdown hurt a lot of people, not just impoverished women and children. It got impoverished men, too, as well as not-so-impoverished others. But I guess it's only *really* a problem if women are affected by whatever 'it' is.

In retrospect, was the shutdown a failed attempt by the Republicrats to get from one another what they wanted? Yes. Did the Republi part of the Republicrats get most of the egg on their face? Yes. The crats did too, but it was mostly the Republis.

So now, what are we left with? We are left with the following: there is NO borrowing limit on the US debt between now and Feb. 2014. Yes, you read that right. Congress has allowed itself to mandate as much borrowing as it wants to between now and then. The sky's not the limit. Pluto's not the limit. The limit is in fact the other side of the universe. I mean, all the way over to the other side. ALL the way.

I almost want to make book on how much the national debt will be by Feb. 1, 2014. Actually, no, strike that. Really, I would be way too afraid of covering all that risk. After all, when the number could be anywhere from $17.5 trillion to $Infinity, my odds of actually making good are pretty lousy.

At this point I put nothing past The Gang That Can't Shoot Straight Or Balance A Checkbook (need I explain to what I am referring?).

And do I think we'd be in any better shape if all the major players had boobs instead of pecs? No. It's not about body parts or hormones. It's about spending more than you take in, and people of both sexes have been known to really bung that one up. In fact, they tend to do it much more when they get together in groups and do so in the name of someone else, and put them on the hook for it. It gets worse when the people put on the hook for it keep rewarding them for doing so by sending them back to keep doing it!

As I have said before, in a republic, the people get the leadership they so richly deserve.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sat, 2013-10-19 20:41

I have to say the article completely misses the point and just turns it into a women victim type news item. Everyone is having to deal with increased prices. There is no reason that a single parent family who has a father bringing up the children would feel the financial pinch any less, they are just jumping on the poor women bandwagon.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Dantheman123 on Sun, 2013-10-20 10:19

That if the government denying benefits to women and children is a type of "economic violence," isn't a mother who fails to provide for her own child also committing an act of economic violence against her own child?

The woman who wrote this cannot see this reality because of her own sense of entitlement and her belief that she has zero responsibility for providing for her own child. It's someone else's job--the man's or the government's job--to provide for her child. If they don't, then she and her child are victims.

In fact, the child is the only victim--of a mother who refuses to provide for the economic needs of her own child.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Sun, 2013-10-20 13:54

Wouldn't it be finanically wise to ALSO invenst money in helping men be better fathers?

This way, they are less likely to abandon their family and there would be fewer single mothers to support.

But this would mean having programs to help men and we know feminists are opposed to that.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by bronxman on Mon, 2013-10-21 12:12