The Feminization of Poverty? There You Go Again, Hillary!

Oh, and I almost forgot in my reverie to add…

That when we’re sufficiently weakened and dispirited, the Marxists will have exactly what they want and the great experiment will wind up just like it did in Russia? Sometimes I despair of people ever learning anything.

Now for the address to the article’s meat:

Excellent points you make, Carey. I agree with all of them, actually.

Marxists know that there needs to be a carefully constructed social order of people who are just helpless enough they can’t fight back but not so helpless that they can be useful to sustaining the society.

America, as it was, simply could not do for all that. You had independent minded free-thinking individiuals who were quite able to, for the most part, take care of themselves with very little outside help. They were generally not very disgruntled, lived decently, and definitely weren’t equal in some important ways…but were smart enough to understand that wasn’t exactly a bad thing either.

Enter WWII, when we went to fight Marxism and Fascism. A significant chunk of our young (and not so young) men went off to fight in this war, and women by the millions stepped up to the plate to help keep things going. To their credit, I was very impressed with how that worked. What I was not impressed with, was the results.

I’ll be blunt, and say it like it is. Child-rearing is THE most important job on the face of the planet. Women by and large were trusted with the majority of that, with the men doing everything that needed to be done to ensure that could be done in reasonable safety. This included working long hours and hazardous jobs, and fighting and DYING, to ensure this could happen. 97% of workplace deaths are STILL men even in this so-called ‘enlightened’ age.

Women, after having had a taste of the other side of it, for some reason decided they wanted a chunk of that pie and quite a significant majority rather casually in my opinion tossed aside their other duties. Which of course is the children.

They then forced their way into the workplace in large masses utilizing the legal system and advocate pressure, and flooded the workforce with large numbers of new and relatively unskilled workers which weren’t there before. Supply and demand, as even anyone with half a neuron firing should realize, drove wages down. Fast forward a couple decades now, and it is almost *necessity* for two people to work and we’re even less of an economic power than we were then.

Not to mention, we have millions of overstressed women, neglected children, and fathers who are so busy dancing from one foot to the other between trying to keep their women happy, not get ground up in the legal system, arrested on a false charge, or any one of the many new dangers fathers face these days.

So what’s the total bill? 50+ million prescriptions of Prozac alone. Reality check folks, we have approximately 330 (I think?) million people or so in America, and over 50 million prescriptions for ONE BRAND of anti-depressant/anti-psychotic. We have kids shooting each other in schools. Drug use and promiscuity is growing into epidemic propotions. Illegitimacy is so common it barely even makes most people blink these days. Murder of CHILDREN is cooly accepted by a signifiant chunk of our population..or otherwise excused by some ‘disorder’ such as ‘post-partum depression.’

Wow…it was really that bad huh? Terrible oppression huh? Safety and relative security and all you had to do was cook some meals, look after the kids, and generally be a good wife.

Now you have to worry about finding sugar daddies while you pop out kids by random fathers so you can milk the gov’t for some money…AND work to carry your own way as well as ‘take care’ of the kids by sending them to school and day care to be raised by someone else. Not to mention finding a man who might want you more than for random sex, while you battle depression at the mess your life is and pop your pills while you lecture little Johnny about substance abuse as he comes home drunk at 14 years old and has already got some young girl pregnant.

Wow. That’s about all I gotta say about that, I think.

Anyone who was paying attention to Katrina should have seen the very stark lesson held in it.

Civilization died there. In less than 24 hrs.

People by the hordes sat around on their butts, like they do when collecting their welfare checks, and waited for someone to come help them instead of helping themselves.

I had a conversation with my stepfather as Katrina footage was moving across my screen. He asked me, “If you were there now, would you be one of those people?”

My response: “Not only no, but hell no. I would have been gone before the storm even hit even if I was broke and penniless. Unless I couldn’t walk, of course. The *last* place I would be is in a city during a disaster like that, at least one that’s in the zone.”

Of course, most of the people that I saw were quite physically capable. They just didn’t have someone holding their hand and leading them by the nose. No little white bus to come around to make sure they got to where they were supposed to be. Sheep.

This is what you get when you reward idleness and attempt to buy people off from being animals. The very moment you stop that train, the rules go bye-bye too and what shreds of decency you purchased with hard working taxpayer’s money vanishes like so much ephemeral smoke.

Welfare 100 years ago used to be that a farmer would leave a portion of his field unharvested…and those who wanted a little food from his generosity had to go harvest it for themselves. IE, they had to work, at least a little bit.

Any one who has extra ought to distribute freely to the poor.

If you are prompted, sell what you possess and give to the poor.

Welfare begins when we help a neighbor in need. The best government governs least.

Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, remaining poverty would drop quickly.

Or even better, GET RID OF ALL WELFARE!!!!

At least put a lifetime limit on food stamps. And as for WIC, how about a 2 child limit? No, get rid of it, at least until single fathers are eligible. And Medicaid has an easy solution to keep costs from escalating – make the users pay a co-payment, just as everyone else does. Why should they not go to the emergency room and get prescription pain medication, since it’s free?

It appears there are greater number of men out there than women. Then again there are far more women shelters out here than men. Once the men shelters get filled, they are left out in the cold.

kiakjones,

In Boston do you see beggars in the street men or women in equal portions?

Are the poor women in your streets there because of paying high child support payments?

Our discussion is about Hillary ignoring half the poor population in her country that she vowed to serve, however, you share what you observe in general terms.

We’re politically incorrect but tolerate diversity around here, so you are invited to be gender specific.

“Miss Rodham, stop drawing pictures of women in villages and start paying attention!”

She IS paying attention. She probably knows the facts and the truth.

When a nation has a strong family and the government stays out of marriage and the family, hen the government is limited.

Marxist don’t want limited government they want expanded government and the easiest way to accomplish expanded government is to create laws, policies, bureaucracies that undermine the strength of the familty.

Hillary IS paying attention. She is a Marxist.

I, myself have seen both men and women beggars here in Boston, MA where I work, Mr Ruffolo, and some of the men I have given money and served food to at the Pine Street Inn (Men’s Shelter) had told me they were homeless because of:

1) Child Support (Owing large amounts of money.)
2) Mental Health Reasons
3) Drug/Alcohol Abuse

Here is an excerpt from an article called “Understanding Poverty in America” – dated January 5, 2004.

The best news is that remaining poverty can readily be reduced further, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don’t work much, and fathers are absent from the home.

In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year–the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year–nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.

Father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

While work and marriage are steady ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, remaining poverty would drop quickly.

I read a similar article about the family court’s support orders against men as welfare reform.

Our government, family judges, orders support, a form of taxation and welfare payment, from producers, a father, to non-producers, a mother.

Evidence that support payment is “woman support” and not “child support” – the mother is not held accountable, in court or the media, for how she spends the money.

Like tax evaders, fathers are incarcerated to enforce the new welfare program.

If women were equal, then they would not need the government to order men to pay them. If women were equal, then men would get physical custody in equal proportions.

So Hillary is trying to sell the old mutilated beggar argument again huh?

Its a great argument, if your goal is to undermine society, you have a nation filled with selfish mothers willing to mutilate their own children in exchange for easy money, and you have a “free press” silenced by PC feminism. Oh, and of course the rule of law must be based on gender too. Hey, sounds to me like it just might work.

In the 1980s, there was a public perception that, to a great extent, poverty in the United States had been created by the high divorce rate. This incredible but persistent view, which sprang from what has become known as the political “feminization of poverty” has been discredited (Abraham, 1989), but has not been liberated from the frame of government policy. Major welfare reforms of the 80s moved into the realm of private marital contracts …

Source: A BRIEF HISTORY OF PREVAILING CHILD SUPPORT DOCTRINE (1992)
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/fam11.htm

The Dirty Little Secret behind Feminism

There are other motivations that Feminist have towards destroying the family..

In order to really understand their motive you must understand some of their psychology. Here is the an essay on that.

http://russianwomen.wordpress.com/2006/09/23/the-dirty-little-secret-behind-feminism/

“Rarely do I see female poor people reduced to begging in the street for money.”–mruffolo

I’ve read the statistic that males make up about 80 percent of the homeless, and they’re mostly single males. In the US, poor women with children are more likely to find assistance programs that help keep them off the street. This indicates a neglect of poor males, not females.

I am increasingly susupicious of feminist-driven reports and programs that originate from the UN. There is just too much leftwing influence in the UN. If it were politicized toward the right of center, I’d be complaining about that as well.

Re the erosion of the family and the feminization of poverty, it makes sense to me that welfare programs beginning in the mid ’60s would contribute significantly to illegitimacy by providing a financial incentive for women to have children without the father in the house. In this situation, the problem isn’t divorce as much as it is the failure of the biological parents to get married in the first place.

I can’t help but be skeptical when I hear the feminist argument that when a women gets divorced, her standard of living drops dramatically while her husband’s rises dramatically. Professor and author Sanford Braver did a major federally funded research project and found that there wasn’t a significant drop in the standard of living of the women he studied. There was a small drop and they tended to recover over a period of several years, often by remarrying. But the divorced men, especially fathers, didn’t do that great right after the divorce either. Alimony, child care expenses (no tax advantages for non-custodial parents), expenses of establishing a new household, etc, all burden the man financially.

Braver distinguishes between parents who divorce and those who have kids out of wedlock and don’t marry. He notes that some poor women who have children out of wedlock may not know who the father is, and/ or may not want to be with him. And the fathers are often impoverished and some may be in jail.

I have never observed poverty outside of my neighborhood.

I observe in my neighborhood poverty stricken men begging on the street only to be arrested by the police (my government), then fined an amount they cannot afford to pay.

This occurred to a male beggar who my family have been giving money to for the past few years.

Similarly last week, I saw the police surround another male beggar on the corner of a major intersection to arrest him.

Rarely do I see female poor people reduced to begging in the street for money.

I live in Chicago.