|
Post by tapati on Aug 29, 2010 17:36:13 GMT -5
I think that whether the church is the nanny or the state is the nanny, instilling a sense of personal responsibility along with any help given is vital, especially when it is obvious that the recipients of aid have been sold a false notion that God--or anyone else--will magically provide without any serious effort on their part. It is never good for anyone to nurture dependency. Remember the whole "give a person a fish you feed him for one day, teach him how to fish and you feed him for life" saying? Helping those who are physically or mentally unable to become independent is a different matter altogether.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Aug 29, 2010 17:39:41 GMT -5
And yes, humbletigger, you are so right: fertile people having unprotected sex will, odds are, conceive children if they are at it long enough and there's no medical problem preventing it. No Divine or supernatural agency is required. It is pretty much a self-perpetuating system. I think God (if He exists) has better things to do than personally direct each pregnancy. Nor do I think He would be so deliberately cruel as to send more children to a family struggling to feed and house the ones they already have!
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 29, 2010 17:42:11 GMT -5
Completely agree. Also probably true, but life is harsh. And people about to experience QF meltdown- when the teens suddenly are not the perfect little angels, and the money is not magically appearing, and the cars are at the end of their lives and no amount of prayer will change that, well, how HARSH is that?! None of the false teachers who set this family up for tragedy are around to help out. Not one. And my friend was not worried about any social stigma of food stamps (which is not the same as welfare btw) only the religious/conservative political stigma put out by those same charlatans. She was HAPPY to understand the rest of the world's point of view, which is that as a society want all of our children to be well-nourished. She was set free to stop looking at the government as the enemy and accept government as the collective voice of our society, our neighbors, our fellow citizens. It was a great load off of her mind, that she would not be sinning to accept the help. I apologize if my honesty was too harsh for the gentle readers of NLQ. I forgot my audience. That is obviously true. Though my IRL friend was helped and not offended, I obviously have offended people here on the form. I am sorry for that. But I am not sorry for the real life conversation, because truth is a beautiful and precious gift that too few people have the courage to share. Even if the woman had been so offended she never wanted to speak to me again, the words would have helped her because they were true. And for me, being a help is more important than personal popularity anyway. But that's neither here nor there as we are still friends and she speaks highly of me and to me, so I have no worries. Well, that's the first time anyone has ever called me gentle...
|
|
valsa
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by valsa on Aug 29, 2010 18:09:01 GMT -5
Furthermore, I think this rhetoric sounds very close to far-right rhetoric about "welfare queens" who shouldn't "keep having children that they can't afford.". Okay, I ask this as a very, very liberal person- since when did it become a bad thing to think people should only have as many kids as they can afford? You don't have to be far-right or stigmatize people on welfare as "welfare queens" to think that those who continue to have children while on assistance are irresponsible and misusing the system.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 29, 2010 18:26:46 GMT -5
Furthermore, I think this rhetoric sounds very close to far-right rhetoric about "welfare queens" who shouldn't "keep having children that they can't afford.". Okay, I ask this as a very, very liberal person- since when did it become a bad thing to think people should only have as many kids as they can afford? You don't have to be far-right or stigmatize people on welfare as "welfare queens" to think that those who continue to have children while on assistance are irresponsible and misusing the system. I'm not sure, though, because from one very progressive person to another... Does being pro-choice end when I think it's unwise for someone to continue having children? I don't think that it does. ETA: But here's the other thing... QF people are a very, very small subset of the overall population. There are simply not enough of them to put a strain on the public system. But this is the very same argument that is usually turned on women of color. I've mentioned before that I come from a state in which a secretive state program forcibly sterilized both women of color and women with disabilities well into the 1970's. I have a really hard time with social arguments about "limiting your children" in general because I know that this is where they ultimately lead (and where they led not long ago at all). Not to majority-white groups like QF, not by a long shot. But to women or color and women with disabilities. I'm not against arguments about personal responsibility, but I think it's wrong that vulnerable populations are the ones who suffer the consequences of these arguments. And, when it comes down to it, I'm pro-choice just as much because I believe in the rights of all women women to plan and have children even if they are not middle class women... And, yes, as much as the Octomom might get on my nerves, I still believe this. If a friend asked my advice on this kind of issue, I'd probably advise against it. But I'll never support social policies that restrict these things. When you come from the South, memories of where these kinds of policies lead are much more in the forefront of your mind.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Aug 29, 2010 18:28:55 GMT -5
Having been a welfare mom, my only objection to the "welfare queen" label and the "shouldn't have more children than they can afford" was that it was used as a slam against ALL of us, rather than the FEW who were behaving irresponsibly. I did know a couple of women who kept having children--conveniently, just as their other children were about to age out of the system--that I thought should have behaved more responsibly. There are a lot of things I didn't like about welfare reform, but one of the things I do like is that it is no longer seen as a lifetime pass. One woman I knew kept welfare going for over twenty years and worked under the table jobs to sustain a middle class lifestyle. She could have completed college in that time, as I did, but she only dabbled in classes here or there, with no accountability. It's people like that who gave the rest of us a bad name. Once I saw that my husband was NOT going to support the children we had, per our belief-system, I made every effort to STOP having children!
In the case of impoverished Quiverfull folks who are hoping for handouts from others, I don't think it is oppressive or discriminatory to point out that they are behaving irresponsibly when they keep having children while the children they already have are going without basic essentials. That's just common sense. It's one thing to have your birth control method fail you. It's another to tell yourself and others that God is sending another child, what am I to do? Oh well...
I'm all for tolerating others' beliefs--until children have to suffer for them. At that point my cultural relativity stops.
|
|
valsa
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by valsa on Aug 29, 2010 18:30:16 GMT -5
Okay, I ask this as a very, very liberal person- since when did it become a bad thing to think people should only have as many kids as they can afford? You don't have to be far-right or stigmatize people on welfare as "welfare queens" to think that those who continue to have children while on assistance are irresponsible and misusing the system. I'm not sure, though, because from one very progressive person to another... Does being pro-choice end when I think it's unwise for someone to continue having children? I don't think that it does. Two different issues, km. I support a woman's ability to choose whether or not she wants to have a child. That does not mean I can't think she's being irresponsible for choosing to have a child she cannot support. I can understand that and I definitely think it's wrong to hold the irresponsibility of a few against the whole. I have no problem with a family who enters the system with 5 kids. That's what the system is meant for- to be a safety net. However, a family who enters the system with two children and keeps having kids, even though they couldn't afford the two they started with- that is, in my opinion, misusing the system. As the old saying goes, if you're in a hole, the first thing you need to do is stop digging.Of course, I'd never call anyone, even the people misusing the system, "welfare queens".
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Aug 29, 2010 18:35:28 GMT -5
I think there's also a huge difference between criticizing the life choices of someone when they impact children's well being, and legislating their choice away. Expressing our opinions here won't prevent impoverished QF families from having more children if that's what they want to do.
Though a few might think it over and realize their children are suffering and delay having another child. That's still their free choice.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 29, 2010 18:39:46 GMT -5
But, honestly? I think the women who do the kinds of things you're talking about are very, very rare. Because it's not a system that engenders a middle-class lifestyle, not by a longshot. I suspect there are a few, but I would be willing to bet that they are so few and far between that they don't put a significant strain on the system.
And I'm not referring to the career criminals/scammers who do put a strain on the system when they commit medicare fraud.
"Welfare queen" is a right-wing racist dogwhistle that was trumped by by the Republicans of the '80's to demonize black single mothers. That's my main criticism of it.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 29, 2010 18:40:34 GMT -5
I think there's also a huge difference between criticizing the life choices of someone when they impact children's well being, and legislating their choice away. Expressing our opinions here won't prevent impoverished QF families from having more children if that's what they want to do. Though a few might think it over and realize their children are suffering and delay having another child. That's still their free choice. Yeah, okay, fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Aug 29, 2010 19:01:24 GMT -5
But, honestly? I think the women who do the kinds of things you're talking about are very, very rare. Because it's not a system that engenders a middle-class lifestyle, not by a longshot. I suspect there are a few, but I would be willing to bet that they are so few and far between that they don't put a significant strain on the system. Which is pretty much what I was saying. Though working under the table while on welfare or even SSI is more common than you might think. You didn't have to be black to feel the sting. They created a stigma that is still present to this day for anyone who needs welfare to get back on their feet, often while fleeing an abusive relationship.
|
|
valsa
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by valsa on Aug 29, 2010 19:16:33 GMT -5
But, honestly? I think the women who do the kinds of things you're talking about are very, very rare. Because it's not a system that engenders a middle-class lifestyle, not by a longshot. I grew up very, VERY poor in Flint, MI, in the late 80s-early 90s. Flint, at the time (and even now, to a certain extent), was considered one of the poorest and worst cities in America. I can only speak of that time frame but “playing the system” was not rare. Not at all. No, welfare does not get you to a middle class lifestyle, but people in my neighborhood rarely tried for “middle class” because it was so beyond their ability to reach (without putting years and years of time and effort into it) The easiest way to “make a living”, so to speak, in my old neighborhood was to a have a boatload of kids. Section 8 will pay your rent, food stamps will buy your family’s food (well, the meals that aren‘t supplied to your kids for free by the schools or summer/after school programs), and welfare will buy anything else. I’ve known more than a few women and kids on welfare who lived a lot easier lives than many Quiverfull families. I know the kind of abuse that welfare faces. The house across the street from me growing up had a large extended living in it. One was a single mother with three minor children- two small girls and a teenage boy. She was a part-time prostitute, but did not claim that money when it came to applying for welfare. Her teenage son, who did not work or go to school, got a girl pregnant, who was living with them with the baby. The teenage girl also got welfare for her infant. Living with all those were the prostitute mother’s sister and her boyfriend (who was a drug dealer and the prostitute’s pimp) They had two small children they were getting welfare and disability checks for (they didn’t claim the money from the drugs or the prostitution) At the time my family moved out of the neighborhood, the sister was pregnant with a third child and was regularly doing drugs specifically because she and her boyfriend wanted to child to be born with disabilities, so that they could get disability checks for that kid too. Now- that level of abuse of the system is not the norm, but it does put into perspective the fact that “having lots of children so you can get higher welfare payments” does not have the same stigma is all communities. To some, it’s just making a living and what's "very, very rare" is actually much, much worse.
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Aug 29, 2010 19:52:06 GMT -5
I think there's also a huge difference between criticizing the life choices of someone when they impact children's well being, and legislating their choice away. Expressing our opinions here won't prevent impoverished QF families from having more children if that's what they want to do. Though a few might think it over and realize their children are suffering and delay having another child. That's still their free choice. I agree that the choice shouldn't be legislated away. However, I strongly believe that the responsible choice for the individual is not to have children that one cannot support. And I don't see getting to have the size of family that you want as any sort of right. It irks me that this is seen as "oh the poor mother, she's just trying to get by, she deserves to have children", while OTOH, it's NOT a free choice for me not to support her and her children. And if I could choose not to support irresponsibility, I'd be slammed on here for being non-compassionate. ETA: Wanted to clarify that I don't think that going on welfare while having a child is irresponsibility. What I mean by not supporting irresponsibility is that I would elect that the amount of welfare that you're getting for your family size when you go on is the amount that you continue getting. If you have three children, then you keep getting the amount for a family with three children, even if you go and have three more.
|
|
valsa
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by valsa on Aug 29, 2010 20:12:28 GMT -5
What I mean by not supporting irresponsibility is that I would elect that the amount of welfare that you're getting for your family size when you go on is the amount that you continue getting. If you have three children, then you keep getting the amount for a family with three children, even if you go and have three more. I would support something like that as well, if it weren't for the fact that I think the children will be the ones who suffer for it. Unfortunately, it's hard to prevent people from playing the system without penalizing the children too.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Aug 29, 2010 20:22:39 GMT -5
I think everyone is making really good points (about the being able to support kids thing particularly). I would also point out that it is important to remember that NLQ exists for the purpose of providing a place for people coming out of a patriarchal and quiverfull world view and that often that means that there are lots of children involved in that exodus. I don't want anyone here to get the feeling that they are being accused or condemned for having fallen prey to that particular world view (with its resultant large family size), and who then requires assistance from the government or others when trying to extricate themselves and get back on their feet. I feel pretty certain that no one here is talking about the women and children (and men if it applies) in that particular quagmire. You guys are what I am happy to be paying into the system to support and you'd be foolish not to take any benefit that is offered to you in your effort to establish a new life for yourselves with all that involves. I too am frustrated, however, by the women who feel the need to give a baby to every guy they date, use no birth control and act as though they have no idea how they got pregnant but don't seem to really care either. There is a virtual parade of them on the daytime court shows. (And it cost me right there to admit I sometimes watch those, btw )
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Aug 29, 2010 20:36:48 GMT -5
I agree that the choice shouldn't be legislated away. However, I strongly believe that the responsible choice for the individual is not to have children that one cannot support. And I don't see getting to have the size of family that you want as any sort of right. It irks me that this is seen as "oh the poor mother, she's just trying to get by, she deserves to have children", while OTOH, it's NOT a free choice for me not to support her and her children. And if I could choose not to support irresponsibility, I'd be slammed on here for being non-compassionate. We have what our foremothers didn't have: available and (mostly) reliable BC. We no longer live in a society in which many children die young. In most families, the number of children born is equal to the number of children that grow to adulthood (I mean families in the developed/western countries since that's my experience). I'm uncomfortable in many ways about considering having children as a "right". I think everyone would be better served by considering having children as a privilege. I don't mean that there should be child-bearing licenses or anything, but more of a change in attitudes, so that children have the best chance of being born to people who have considered the quality of life they will have. It's not an income or class issue - children can be loved and well-cared for or abused and neglected at any income level. Responsibility rather than entitlement?
|
|
kathe
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by kathe on Aug 29, 2010 21:35:57 GMT -5
I agree in principle but it's difficult to regulate that. Part of my standard "adult responsibility" talk to my kids included the fact that I could point out to them, in their extended family and close friends, examples of the failure of every method of birth control except abstinence. How do you police that? How do you determine who's using bc and who isn't and what do you do about the children who come along even if bc is being used? Then what do you do about the woman who escapes a QF situation, or is in one, with a slew of kids who need food?
I wish there were a simple answer but I'm afraid there isn't.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 29, 2010 21:46:49 GMT -5
But, honestly? I think the women who do the kinds of things you're talking about are very, very rare. Because it's not a system that engenders a middle-class lifestyle, not by a longshot. I suspect there are a few, but I would be willing to bet that they are so few and far between that they don't put a significant strain on the system. Which is pretty much what I was saying. Though working under the table while on welfare or even SSI is more common than you might think. You didn't have to be black to feel the sting. They created a stigma that is still present to this day for anyone who needs welfare to get back on their feet, often while fleeing an abusive relationship. I know that this is true, but having gotten assistance in the state of Connecticut not that long ago... I'll just say that I know that my level of education and my whiteness got me through the process quite a lot more easily than many others. I did experience stigma, yeah, but I saw most people around me treated much worse.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 29, 2010 21:50:26 GMT -5
But, honestly? I think the women who do the kinds of things you're talking about are very, very rare. Because it's not a system that engenders a middle-class lifestyle, not by a longshot. I grew up very, VERY poor in Flint, MI, in the late 80s-early 90s. Flint, at the time (and even now, to a certain extent), was considered one of the poorest and worst cities in America. I can only speak of that time frame but “playing the system” was not rare. Not at all. No, welfare does not get you to a middle class lifestyle, but people in my neighborhood rarely tried for “middle class” because it was so beyond their ability to reach (without putting years and years of time and effort into it) The easiest way to “make a living”, so to speak, in my old neighborhood was to a have a boatload of kids. Section 8 will pay your rent, food stamps will buy your family’s food (well, the meals that aren‘t supplied to your kids for free by the schools or summer/after school programs), and welfare will buy anything else. I’ve known more than a few women and kids on welfare who lived a lot easier lives than many Quiverfull families. I know the kind of abuse that welfare faces. The house across the street from me growing up had a large extended living in it. One was a single mother with three minor children- two small girls and a teenage boy. She was a part-time prostitute, but did not claim that money when it came to applying for welfare. Her teenage son, who did not work or go to school, got a girl pregnant, who was living with them with the baby. The teenage girl also got welfare for her infant. Living with all those were the prostitute mother’s sister and her boyfriend (who was a drug dealer and the prostitute’s pimp) They had two small children they were getting welfare and disability checks for (they didn’t claim the money from the drugs or the prostitution) At the time my family moved out of the neighborhood, the sister was pregnant with a third child and was regularly doing drugs specifically because she and her boyfriend wanted to child to be born with disabilities, so that they could get disability checks for that kid too. Now- that level of abuse of the system is not the norm, but it does put into perspective the fact that “having lots of children so you can get higher welfare payments” does not have the same stigma is all communities. To some, it’s just making a living and what's "very, very rare" is actually much, much worse. And how old are you? I think you probably aren't considering how much things have changed since Welfare Reform... Also, I'm not sure various kinds of criminality are "playing the system." They're just...criminality. Certainly, it's possible to get rich via involvement in illegal trafficking of any kind, but I think it's wrong to conflate this as another side of the same problem. They're two different things. And if prostitution were regulated and all, by god, it'd be possible to claim it...
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 29, 2010 21:53:08 GMT -5
I think everyone is making really good points (about the being able to support kids thing particularly). I would also point out that it is important to remember that NLQ exists for the purpose of providing a place for people coming out of a patriarchal and quiverfull world view and that often that means that there are lots of children involved in that exodus. I don't want anyone here to get the feeling that they are being accused or condemned for having fallen prey to that particular world view (with its resultant large family size), and who then requires assistance from the government or others when trying to extricate themselves and get back on their feet. I feel pretty certain that no one here is talking about the women and children (and men if it applies) in that particular quagmire. You guys are what I am happy to be paying into the system to support and you'd be foolish not to take any benefit that is offered to you in your effort to establish a new life for yourselves with all that involves. I too am frustrated, however, by the women who feel the need to give a baby to every guy they date, use no birth control and act as though they have no idea how they got pregnant but don't seem to really care either. There is a virtual parade of them on the daytime court shows. (And it cost me right there to admit I sometimes watch those, btw ) Thanks, Nikita, for what you say in the first three paragraphs. Per the last one: I mean, do you really think poor people are like the people on Maury Povich (who are mostly paid actors)?
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Aug 29, 2010 21:55:04 GMT -5
I agree that the choice shouldn't be legislated away. However, I strongly believe that the responsible choice for the individual is not to have children that one cannot support. And I don't see getting to have the size of family that you want as any sort of right. It irks me that this is seen as "oh the poor mother, she's just trying to get by, she deserves to have children", while OTOH, it's NOT a free choice for me not to support her and her children. And if I could choose not to support irresponsibility, I'd be slammed on here for being non-compassionate. We have what our foremothers didn't have: available and (mostly) reliable BC. We no longer live in a society in which many children die young. In most families, the number of children born is equal to the number of children that grow to adulthood (I mean families in the developed/western countries since that's my experience). I'm uncomfortable in many ways about considering having children as a "right". I think everyone would be better served by considering having children as a privilege. I don't mean that there should be child-bearing licenses or anything, but more of a change in attitudes, so that children have the best chance of being born to people who have considered the quality of life they will have. It's not an income or class issue - children can be loved and well-cared for or abused and neglected at any income level. Responsibility rather than entitlement? Sometimes, despite all the best planning in the world and all the best forethought and planning, we can find ourselves in the worst of circumstances. So a family could have ample means at one point, and due to one catastrophic or even a not so catastrophic event, a family could find themselves in bad shape and unable to provide for themselves. Life is funny that way. I've seen patients come in to hospitals and even into hospice, surprised by illness that they didn't anticipate, something that could not be avoided for all the planning in the world. Our world economy is unstable, and many people who would have never dreamed of being without means are hard pressed financially. Or consider divorce, too. Who plans when they marry and have their babes to be prepared for the hardships of doing so without one's spouse one day? (Not that people should bank on divorce or anything, but it is another example of how life doesn't always unfold in the way that we planned.) And some people get pregnant despite taking many measures (save abstinence) to prevent pregnancy, and that is certainly not an exercise of poor judgment or irresponsibility. I think that the real issue involves the "one size fits all" solutions and pigeon holes that QF/patriocentricity tries to prescribe for all people, whether that means how many children to have and how to provide for those children. Most people subscribe to these belief systems because they present solutions to difficult problems and answers to questions that are hard to address. They seem to make things easier, and people don't have to think as hard about things. Part of not thinking is the subtle and unspoken idea that one does not have to bear full moral responsibility for things if certain decisions are made for them. Sometimes this is helpful (I always think of the ABCs of CPR which, in a pinch in any clinical setting, this rule is always paramount and superceedes all others for decision making. But the ABC's of CPR don't help me figure out how to get charting done and the rest of my routine patient care completed!) And some things involve ongoing decision making and the bearing of the responsibility and accountability that comes with doing the work. My point is that there are no blanket answers, and we should not be quick to pass moral judgments on individuals. Individuals are messy and never really conform to the mean or the averages or the set norms. One woman might have lots of children and can provide for them well, never having want. Another woman can have lots of children and might not do so well keeping up in terms of both care and resources. And some families may have had means at one point, and they might later have want. It is one thing to state principles -- and I think the central ones are that it is wrong to shrug personal responsibility, common sense and balance off in favor of following a static rule written by someone else. We are all different and all have different baggage. We have different strengths, weaknesses, circumstances and experiences. I love the book mark my mother carried in her Bible that quoted a Native American proverb to never judge another man until and unless you'd traveled a mile in their shoes.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 29, 2010 21:55:08 GMT -5
I agree that the choice shouldn't be legislated away. However, I strongly believe that the responsible choice for the individual is not to have children that one cannot support. And I don't see getting to have the size of family that you want as any sort of right. It irks me that this is seen as "oh the poor mother, she's just trying to get by, she deserves to have children", while OTOH, it's NOT a free choice for me not to support her and her children. And if I could choose not to support irresponsibility, I'd be slammed on here for being non-compassionate. We have what our foremothers didn't have: available and (mostly) reliable BC. We no longer live in a society in which many children die young. In most families, the number of children born is equal to the number of children that grow to adulthood (I mean families in the developed/western countries since that's my experience). I'm uncomfortable in many ways about considering having children as a "right". I think everyone would be better served by considering having children as a privilege. I don't mean that there should be child-bearing licenses or anything, but more of a change in attitudes, so that children have the best chance of being born to people who have considered the quality of life they will have. It's not an income or class issue - children can be loved and well-cared for or abused and neglected at any income level. Responsibility rather than entitlement? I think I like what you're saying. Changes in attitudes are great... Legal prohibitions on child-bearing not so great.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 29, 2010 22:02:04 GMT -5
We have what our foremothers didn't have: available and (mostly) reliable BC. We no longer live in a society in which many children die young. In most families, the number of children born is equal to the number of children that grow to adulthood (I mean families in the developed/western countries since that's my experience). I'm uncomfortable in many ways about considering having children as a "right". I think everyone would be better served by considering having children as a privilege. I don't mean that there should be child-bearing licenses or anything, but more of a change in attitudes, so that children have the best chance of being born to people who have considered the quality of life they will have. It's not an income or class issue - children can be loved and well-cared for or abused and neglected at any income level. Responsibility rather than entitlement? Sometimes, despite all the best planning in the world and all the best forethought and planning, we can find ourselves in the worst of circumstances. So a family could have ample means at one point, and due to one catastrophic or even a not so catastrophic event, a family could find themselves in bad shape and unable to provide for themselves. Life is funny that way. I've seen patients come in to hospitals and even into hospice, surprised by illness that they didn't anticipate, something that could not be avoided for all the planning in the world. Our world economy is unstable, and many people who would have never dreamed of being without means are hard pressed financially. Or consider divorce, too. Who plans when they marry and have their babes to be prepared for the hardships of doing so without one's spouse one day? (Not that people should bank on divorce or anything, but it is another example of how life doesn't always unfold in the way that we planned.) And some people get pregnant despite taking many measures (save abstinence) to prevent pregnancy, and that is certainly not an exercise of poor judgment or irresponsibility. I think that the real issue involves the "one size fits all" solutions and pigeon holes that QF/patriocentricity tries to prescribe for all people, whether that means how many children to have and how to provide for those children. Most people subscribe to these belief systems because they present solutions to difficult problems and answers to questions that are hard to address. They seem to make things easier, and people don't have to think as hard about things. Part of not thinking is the subtle and unspoken idea that one does not have to bear full moral responsibility for things if certain decisions are made for them. Sometimes this is helpful (I always think of the ABCs of CPR which, in a pinch in any clinical setting, this rule is always paramount and superceedes all others for decision making. But the ABC's of CPR don't help me figure out how to get charting done and the rest of my routine patient care completed!) And some things involve ongoing decision making and the bearing of the responsibility and accountability that comes with doing the work. My point is that there are no blanket answers, and we should not be quick to pass moral judgments on individuals. Individuals are messy and never really conform to the mean or the averages or the set norms. One woman might have lots of children and can provide for them well, never having want. Another woman can have lots of children and might not do so well keeping up in terms of both care and resources. And some families may have had means at one point, and they might later have want. It is one thing to state principles -- and I think the central ones are that it is wrong to shrug personal responsibility, common sense and balance off in favor of following a static rule written by someone else. We are all different and all have different baggage. We have different strengths, weaknesses, circumstances and experiences. I love the book mark my mother carried in her Bible that quoted a Native American proverb to never judge another man until and unless you'd traveled a mile in their shoes. Cindy: THANK YOU. To your point about having an unstable world economy, I would add that we also have an unjust one, and yes... More and more people are finding themselves in unstable financial situations and finding that they need assistance. And thank you for pointing out the judgmental tone of much of this thread--I think that's what I'm objecting to most of all (along with stereotypes and generalizations about what it's like to be poor--and what poor people themselves are like). We simply cannot know for sure whether or not we'll fall into poverty from one day to the next, and the past two years should have made that amply clear to us all. ETA: I would add, by the way, that as much as everyone is insisting that this isn't about race or class... Of course it is about these things. When "welfare queens" and "abusing the system" and all of these phrases enter into a discussion, it's never not about race and class. Also, what exactly constitutes "being able to provide for a child"? Beyond food, shelter, clothing... Should a parent be required to cover college education? Graduate school? We are all going to have different ideas about what parents should provide for their children. I hope we can all agree that we have a system that makes it very, very easy to descend into conversations that blame the poor for being poor. It happens all the time, but it would make much more sense to me to delineate structural problems and failures than what I'm seeing happen now--that is, people judging women whom we have decided have too many children.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Aug 29, 2010 22:10:40 GMT -5
I too am frustrated, however, by the women who feel the need to give a baby to every guy they date, use no birth control and act as though they have no idea how they got pregnant but don't seem to really care either. There is a virtual parade of them on the daytime court shows. (And it cost me right there to admit I sometimes watch those, btw ) Thanks, Nikita, for what you say in the first three paragraphs. Per the last one: I mean, do you really think poor people are like the people on Maury Povich (who are mostly paid actors)? No no no no... Court shows. You know, where they're on welfare and section eight but somehow managed to buy the $500 smartphone and then signed up their last unemployed boyfriend they'd only known for two weeks who then ran up a $2000 cell phone bill with downloads and ring tones and now refuses to pay for it and has moved on but with whom they have a child (number five) although they are now pregnant with baby number six from the even newer boyfriend who they met at a club four months ago. Etc. And none of them are working. These aren't paid actors. These are their actual lives. They're just trying to get the delinquent cell phone bill paid (or the 'loan' for new rims the boyfriend insisted was a necessity) and have filed a small claims case to try to get paid back. The details of their lives comes up in the telling of their case. Them, I am frustrated about.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 29, 2010 22:12:33 GMT -5
Thanks, Nikita, for what you say in the first three paragraphs. Per the last one: I mean, do you really think poor people are like the people on Maury Povich (who are mostly paid actors)? No no no no... Court shows. You know, where they're on welfare and section eight but somehow managed to buy the $500 smartphone and then signed up their last unemployed boyfriend they'd only known for two weeks who then ran up a $2000 cell phone bill with downloads and ring tones and now refuses to pay for it and has moved on but with whom they have a child (number five) although they are now pregnant with baby number six from the even newer boyfriend who they met at a club four months ago. Etc. And none of them are working. These aren't paid actors. These are their actual lives. They're just trying to get the delinquent cell phone bill paid (or the 'loan' for new rims the boyfriend insisted was a necessity) and have filed a small claims case to try to get paid back. The details of their lives comes up in the telling of their case. Them, I am frustrated about. Hmmkay, but again... How much of the poor population of North America is really represented by people shameless enough to go on court shows? I don't watch these, but from what you're saying... Fair enough, but is this really widespread enough to constitute a serious social problem?
|
|