Dalrymple Again
Here we go again. It's a repeat of a familiar tragic tale around these parts these past few days -- a tale of flagrant child endangerment -- but in a different color. I suspect when I tell it about a white lady, the tiny little fascists who've been accusing me of being racist for criticizing a black lady may find some other thinker unapproved by "progressives" to drop their tiny little comment attack turds on.
The story this time? A British welfare freeloader, Fiona MacKeown, had a taxpayer funded litter of children -- nine children by five different fathers, none of whom ever contributed for long to the children's upkeep, writes Theodore Dalrymple in City Journal.
One of these children, a fatherless 15-year-old, Scarlett Keeling, was left behind while Mummy and most of the rest of the gang trotted off to Goa, India where the $50,000/year welfare payments apparently go much further than in the U.K. Dalrymple mentions yet another McKeown child, not taken to Goa, a 19-year-old drug addict.
In the absence of a daddy to look out for her, Keeling was dumped into the lap of a tour guide 10 years older, a man her mother had known only a short time. Poor, daddyless and de facto motherless Scarlett reportedly said she had sex with the tour guide only because she needed a roof over her head. In addition, Dalrymple writes:
According to a witness, she was constantly on drugs; and one night, she went to a bar where she drank a lot and took several different illicit drugs, including LSD, cocaine, and pot. She was seen leaving the bar late, almost certainly intoxicated.The next morning, her body turned up on a beach. At first, the local police maintained that she had drowned while high, but further examination proved that someone had raped and then forcibly drowned her. So far, three people have been arrested in the investigation, which is continuing.
About a month later, Scarlett's mother, interviewed by the liberal Sunday newspaper the Observer, expressed surprise at the level of public vituperation aimed at her and her lifestyle in the aftermath of the murder. She agreed that she and her children lived on welfare, but "not by conscious choice," and she couldn't see anything wrong with her actions in India apart from a certain naivety in trusting the man in whose care she had left her daughter. Scarlett was always an independent girl, and if she, the mother, could turn the clock back, she would behave exactly the same way again.
It is not surprising that someone in Fiona MacKeown's position would deny negligence; to acknowledge it would be too painful. But--and this is what is truly disturbing--when the newspaper asked four supposed child-rearing experts for their opinions, only one saw anything wrong with the mother's behavior, and even she offered only muted criticism. It was always difficult to know how much independence to grant an adolescent, the expert said; but in her view, the mother had granted too much too quickly to Scarlett.
Independence? Independence?! Sorry, but calling abject child neglect "independence" doesn't make it so. Independence at 15 is maybe going on a little date with a 16-year-old, not fucking your way to shelter after your "mother" has abandoned you.
Most shockingly, the Observer's resident idiot sees things a little differently:
Even that seemed excessively harsh to the Observer's Barbara Ellen. We should not criticize the mother's way of life, she wrote, since it had nothing to do with her daughter's death: "Scarlett died for the simple fact that she was in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong people, as well as being blitzed with drugs, late at night, in a foreign country." On this view, being in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong people is a raw fact of nature, not the result of human agency, decision, education, or taste. It could happen to anybody, and it just happened to happen to Scarlett. As for drugs, they emerge from the ether and blitz people completely at random. It all seems very unfair.
Let's be real plain about this: This girl died because she had a "mother" and no daddy.
There was a car crash in my neighborhood the other day. Horrifying. Some woman apparently whipped around a stopped car at a crosswalk -- stopped because two guys with bikes were crossing -- and hit one of them. I live in terror that I will hit somebody with my car and possibly leave them dead or in pain for the rest of their lives. It's a sense of "agency" that makes me feel that way -- a sense of personal responsibility for my actions, and a sense that my actions can have powerful, maybe very negative consequences. In short, my message to myself when I'm behind the wheel: Drive carefully, there are other people out there. You might hurt them.
This, to me, is the correct way to feel about nebulous, hypothetical strangers. Meanwhile, this idiot Barbara Eden...she fails even to trace a sense of responsibility from mother back to daughter? How creepy.
Shockingly, just like with the "progressives" in America and black leaders apparently more interested in the welfare of their wallets than the black community, people in the U.K. were loath to criticize the "parent" of poor, dead Scarlett. Dalrymple has an idea of why:
I suspect, however, that the main consideration inhibiting elite criticism of MacKeown is that passing judgment would call into question the shibboleths of liberal social policy for the last 50 or 60 years--beliefs that give their proponents a strong sense of moral superiority. It would be to entertain the heretical thought that family structure might matter after all, along with such qualities as self-restraint and self-respect; and that welfare dependency is unjust to those who pay for it and disastrous for those who wind up trapped in it.
The problem is the "parents" who make the kids pay, and the kids who get no say in it.
thanks, Craig
From that last line i get the sense that you had a very unhappy childhood.
Transfriendly at August 19, 2008 1:18 AM
I love reading the Daily Mail and other such English papers. They are full of maddening and eyerolling stories about white trash, brown trash, and black trash. Any time I hear about how the British are better then us and I just think of those stories.
I thought it was this story
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-358628/Mum-shows-guilt-abandoning-daughter-toyboy.html
John Paulson at August 19, 2008 1:48 AM
Something I don't quite understand: why would the UK send welfare payments to India? As I understand it, most countries provide welfare for their legal residents. If she is not resident, she surely shouldn't be getting payments?
bradley13 at August 19, 2008 2:14 AM
I see you haven't completely gotten rid of the trolls yet, but they're having a harder time finding something to say. That's progress!
Shawn at August 19, 2008 2:44 AM
Hey! Not Barbara Eden, high on the all-time babe list! Barbara Ellen.
Radwaste at August 19, 2008 3:05 AM
I will never understand those who swerve around a car stopped at a crosswalk. A woman did it while I was at a crosswalk waiting for an elderly woman to cross the street,luckily enough she saw the woman and stopped. She ended up pulled up beside me and of course I opened my window and said 'Why do you think I stopped??' She gave me a sour look but, my god, she could have killed her.
crella at August 19, 2008 3:29 AM
I'm a little confused about the story -- did the young girl travel to Goa with her Mum, and then was palmed off on the tour guide? That said, it amazes me that no matter what you tell them, some folks just don't seem to get it: What? I have to look after my kid before I can have fun?
Two more things: First, how can someone on the dole afford to go to Asia on vacation? Welfare payments in the U.K. must be quite a bit larger than they are in the States. Second: Isn't being nonjudgemental, when it comes right down to it, really a kind of judgement? By being nonjudgemental aren't we saying (at least sometimes) that some people, like Fiona MacKeown and her sad, sad children, are unworthy of our concern?
old rpm daddy at August 19, 2008 4:11 AM
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080819/D92L7MB00.html
Amy, here's more anecdotal information about single parenting. The key quotes are down in the article. Of course, no one wants to judge (tongue fulling in cheek). Thanks for taking the fight forward. Liberalism can win when it preaches freedom WITH responsibility. Did the little fascists knock you offline yesterday? I tried to get to your site but it said unavailable. Regards....
SoldierRenter at August 19, 2008 4:40 AM
By being nonjudgemental aren't we saying (at least sometimes) that some people, like Fiona MacKeown and her sad, sad children, are unworthy of our concern?
Nah, old rpm daddy, I don't think we're saying that as much as we're saying that we are starting to realize that those people are unconcerned about our concern. It's not a matter of being nonjudgemental about them; of course we're going to be, to an extent. What it comes down to is that they are less concerned about their situation than we are. And that is what makes it even sadder for their children. They don't care that we care about them.
Flynne at August 19, 2008 5:36 AM
Well, she couldn't help it. She's white and had no choice but to be on welfare and go from man to man, breeding like a rodent and taking little responsibility for her actions.
Obviously, it comes from being raised in what was formerly a royal patriarchy. Anyone living with such a terrible socio-political burden can hardly be expected to rise above this level of existence. I'm amazed and proud of her accomplishments lo these few generations out of serfdom.
If the UK keeps giving her ilk welfare and affirmative action support for another three or four generations I think we'll see full integration into society as equal members, completely functional and free of the burden of discrimination.
Additionally, I think it's high time the UK cut her a large reparations check for the lingering suffering her ancestors endured as peasants. Now THAT would solve the problem immediately.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 19, 2008 5:46 AM
"What it comes down to is that they are less concerned about their situation than we are. And that is what makes it even sadder for their children. They don't care that we care about them."
I can see your point, Flynne. I'm just trying to get my arms around this thing. By the way, I wasn't suggesting that anybody here was using non-judgementalism (is that a word?) as a disguise for elitist detachment. Amy's posters are anything but non-judgemental, which is what makes this site so fun! (Gotta go before my boss sees me)
old rpm daddy at August 19, 2008 6:21 AM
Someone tell me again WHY we can't sterilize people? That woman is not a mother. She's a pussy-for-rent that apparently doesn't know about birth control. Aptly named litter, indeed.
She should also be in prison for child abandonment. Or don't they have that over there? Also, child endangerment, child protistution, any number of other crimes. As if we weren't certain of it before, the Brits are idiots.
And how did she get her welfare payments while in india? Do they have direct deposit on those now? Or does Britain encourage their welfare suckers to travel where the welfare money goes further?
momof3 at August 19, 2008 6:25 AM
Wow, I needed this today. I just rejected a very generous offer from my sis-in-law of one week's babysitting provided for my three kids so that hubby and I could go on a "no kids" vacation together. I felt guilty at the thought, since they're still pretty young (ages 3-9). I am such an amateur, and must now bow down in awe to the new acceptable parenting standard.
(For any progressives reading this, the above is thinly veiled sarcasm. Please don't call DCFS on my conservative a$$)
juliana at August 19, 2008 6:32 AM
Ha! Well done, Gog_Magog.
Lest some divorced mom on welfare falls into despair and goes all fatalistic reading these comments, let me say that exercising the kind of personal responsibility Amy recommends can bring such a family through.
One of the people I taught with at the U had received welfare assistance for a time after her divorce. She said the experience was so humiliating to her that she accepted the payments no longer than she desperately needed them. She still managed to get an advanced degree and raise a couple of fine daughers.
My own mother divorced my father when I was ten and my two sisters were younger. After we were grown, she confessed she felt guilty all of her life for "putting us at risk." We always assured her we were far better off with her alone than we would have been with our father in the house.
In both these cases, the "broken" families had the emotional support of large extended families with strong ethical principles.
Axman at August 19, 2008 6:49 AM
Some people just have to much pride to accept public assistance. Much as I want to throttle Gary M. for it (my friend who is an artist who happens to be homeless) he refuses to "identify as homeless," which is what I need him to do for St. Joseph's center to get him housing and go to bat for him for a jaywalking ticket he got, which has turned into a bit of a problem (bench warrant). He keeps saying he will, but just can't do it -- and he's a guy who tips at Starbucks, which I find amazing. You're either a class act or you're not, and there are a whole lot of people who are very lacking in values, and when they have children, that's a very serious thing.
I actually committed to telling the truth and behaving ethically. I think most people think they are ethical, but I think it's good to actually set it up as a verbal statement to yourself. For example, I don't lie (except if your ass really does look fat in that dress and you're already at the party) and I don't behave unethically, at least, not knowingly. For example, Costco delivered stuff to my house yesterday, a big order. The guy had a big thing of orange juice on top. I did not order orange juice. He said to just keep it. I said no, it wasn't mine, and I couldn't do stuff like that. He took it back with him. And you know, had I not had that little pact with myself, I would maybe have taken it, and then felt like crap, and then had to dispose of it somehow to make up for being creepy -- deliver it back to Costco, I dunno. It's funny, too, people think you need religion to be moral. You really just have to want to be moral, and from where I'm coming from, it feels much better than the other way around.
Amy Alkon at August 19, 2008 6:56 AM
Someone tell me again WHY we can't sterilize people?
So people like you can feel pleasurable contempt at their fucked-up lives, momof3?
The British encourage these sorts of feckless "pussy-for-rent" types - who refuse to abort & live in caravans on the public tit without mains electricity or water & grow their own veggies & then obligingly allow at least one daughter to get herself raped and throttled - only to make upright Texan homemakers like you feel peachy!
Here's an interview with this dregs-of-humanity which should just about make your day!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3558637.ece
Jody Tresidder at August 19, 2008 7:24 AM
Too mad mum isn't Muslim. Then she could claim she gave her daughter to the men to be raped as punishment for disobedience and get off scott free. Britain is seriously considering allowing Muslims to police their own under Sharia Law. Why not give every British subject the same right?
Bella Hellfire at August 19, 2008 7:25 AM
Someone tell me again WHY we can't sterilize people?
So people like you can feel pleasurable contempt at their fucked-up lives, momof3?
The British encourage these sorts of feckless "pussy-for-rent" types - as you put it! - who refuse to abort & live in caravans on the public tit without mains electricity or water & grow their own veggies & then obligingly allow at least one daughter to get herself raped and slowly throttled to death - only to make upright Texan homemakers like you feel peachy!
Here's an interview with this dregs-of-humanity Brit which should just about 'make your day'!
The link is getting drop-kicked by Amy's new spam filters.
(Try googling UK Times and Fiona MacKeown).
AMY NOTE: ACTUALLY JODY, SAW THAT IN YOUR PREVIOUS POST AND DE-SPAMMED IT. GREGG IS TWEAKING THE FILTERS NOW.
Jody Tresidder at August 19, 2008 7:35 AM
This story illustrates why declared Britain "the Western world in which to be a child."
DADvocate at August 19, 2008 7:52 AM
Jody -
It gets worse. For all the kvetching people do in the US about illegals getting welfare, it's actually not much of an issue except in a few states where they don't much give a shit.
But in Jolly Old England™, they're importing entire families from the middle east and Pakistan and putting them on the dole. Wasn't one of the tube bombers getting something like a couple hundred thousand a year in "assistance"?
You've got people over there making more ON WELFARE, than I make from working here.
Maybe I should move to England and go on the dole.
brian at August 19, 2008 8:01 AM
It doesn't suprise me at all that someone who can't be bothered to provide for her children financially also can't be bothered to take the time to raise them properly.
On being judgemental:
"Having someone call you judgmental is a good thing. It’s a compliment. Thank God I’m judgmental or I might be living in a trailer somewhere, pregnant with my third kid and on welfare, waiting for my old man Dean to get home from the bar and beat my ass for forgetting to heat up his frozen biscuits and gravy." -From Wide Lawns and Narrow Minds... and here's the full post:
http://www.violentacres.com/archives/326/its-good-to-be-judgmental
I think it's pretty well put.
andrew'shotwife at August 19, 2008 8:24 AM
This story illustrates why declared Britain "the Western world in which to be a child."
DADvocate at August 19, 2008 8:33 AM
>>>Wasn't one of the tube bombers getting something like a couple hundred thousand a year in "assistance"?
Surely you jest, brian?
Gee, I remember it was far more than that. A million at least, wasn't it?
Jody Tresidder at August 19, 2008 8:38 AM
There is a sense of denial out there that many parents have. "Society" is the typical scapegoat. So is being a teen.
Last night I was in charge of babysitting my brother (my mom is taking my sister to college and my dad isn't living at home because of mental/emotional instability and physical abuse.).
Well, after speaking to me like I was trash my brother informed me that his friend was sleeping over and they were going to go swimming (it was 10 PM). We got into a bit of a row - I was upset he simply told me "this is what's happening" instead of trying to respectfully negotiate it...leading me to call the friend's parents to have him picked up. Call me a cunt and you probably won't get what you're after.
My brother proceeds to flip out in an angry rage. Calls me every name in the book. Breaks the t.v. clicker. Throws my purse. Dents the wall.
I end up calling my father saying "You created this. You fix it." Afterwards, while talking to my father, I mentioned the fact that my brother is acting very much like he does. As a 15 year old he'll be a jack ass by default. But couple that with the fact he's had a shitty male role model with serious anger management issues - and, well, you've got a MAJOR jack ass. My father adamantly denied the possibility that my brother's behavior was learned - that it's simply a factor of his age. That there cannot possibly be a causal link.
I laughed at him and told him he's either hilarious or a total dimwit.
Poor parenting cannot possibly lead to undesirable behavior in children (and emotional instability)...and I have purple tentacles.
I feel that some parents need a time out every now and then.
Gretchen at August 19, 2008 8:46 AM
Gretchen - what your little brother needs is a good old-fashioned ass whoopin.
See, that's how it's supposed to work - the father presents himself as the strong one who will lay down the law. If the father shirks on that by being consistently violent no matter the circumstance, all bets are off.
Your brother has nobody to keep him in line, and nobody to fear physical pain from.
I feel sorry for you, and for his future PO.
brian at August 19, 2008 8:50 AM
...p.s the personal anecdote seemed really relevant. This one mother is a particular waste of space and, like Ms. Wilson, I liken her behavior to abuse. Abused children grow up emotionally injured and unstable and are more likely to abuse. So are these kids.
But it's also prevalent in less extreme cases.
Moral of the story: parents' behavior has an enormous impact on kids' behavior. If you never teach your kids to say their pleases and thank yous they won't spontaneously generate the idea to do so - it comes from an outside source (t.v., grandma, school) but most likely it all comes from home! I feel like all I'm doing is stating the obvious but I fear that to many it isn't obvious. If someone isn't prepared to teach by example and accept that their behavior rubs off on their kids then they shouldn't have kids.
Gretchen at August 19, 2008 8:52 AM
I feel sorry for my brother the most. He's the one who loses in this situation.
He used to be a really great kid. I tried helping him (talking to him, suggested counseling to my parents and also try to coach my parents - like, if he doesn't make curfew take away his phone and if he says "fuck you" to my mom take his video games. I never said "fuck you" or gave my parents trouble so they applied their same lax parenting to him. Only it isn't working. Yet they don't modify their behavior and my father continues setting poor examples. My god.).
Gretchen at August 19, 2008 8:55 AM
No. This girl died because somebody raped and drowned her.
Dan Someone at August 19, 2008 9:56 AM
Hey troll -
You might try doing something more than a "final causes" analysis. Christ, for a bunch of people who want to find "root causes" for Islamic terrorism, you sure aren't terribly interested in the "root causes" of individual suffering and death, are you?
brian at August 19, 2008 10:14 AM
Trolls are being removed with alacrity! Left that one in just for a change of pace.
Amy Alkon at August 19, 2008 10:19 AM
Thanks. I needed the foil there so my post made sense.
The sad thing is that it is impossible to tell whether the trolls ACTUALLY think that way, or are just acting.
If they're acting, it's a pathetic waste of their time. The only reason I can see for that is they are trying to provoke a reaction that they can then point to and say "see, conservatives just can't be reasoned with", or as Kos likes to do, point to the comment itself and call it a "conservative false-flag operation designed to discredit the progressive movement".
Which is way too deep for this kind of crap, which leads to my first option.
And that makes me a Sad Panda. Because if the Democratic party is being influenced by such marginal thinkers, we're all screwed.
brian at August 19, 2008 10:29 AM
Careful brian. I agree with you here, but "final cause usually means "the end, that for the sake of which a thing is done." I know it's nit picking, but there's been lots of improper criticism of final causes in science and economics.
To avoid equivocation we often say 'ultimate cause' to refer to the "real reason" something happened. And we say 'proximate cause' for the last cause of an event.
The Aristotelian notion of "final cause" or "purpose" is rarely used today. (I think that's an error.) In fact, moderns don't like to think of purposes as causes in any sense.
The troll is improperly attributing a proximate cause as the ultimate cause. It's one of the most common sophistries of the left: to move ad hoc between proximate and ultimate causes. They seem to adhere to no uniform principle of causation, particularly as regards human action which invariably involves purposes.
Jeff at August 19, 2008 10:32 AM
Dan,
I can't determine if you are being sarcastic, disrespectful, or are merely intellectually paralyzed.
That said, my response assumes the latter. I suspect that there are manifold meanings to Amy's statement. However, I will only offer you two that I believe are possible explanations.
First, had this "mother" been a true mom and not a welfare mom, she wouldn't have been where she was to begin with. In a perfect setting, it would have been her, her children, and dad, but not dads.
Next, had the girl's father been there, I can assure you that no loving father with a reasonable amount of intelligence wouldn't have allowed his 15-year daughter to be placed with a practically unknown male.
That said, I concur with Amy and agree that this girl was raped and violently murder because she had no father.
Tony Fantetti
Tony Fantetti at August 19, 2008 10:33 AM
Let's be real plain about this: This girl died because she had a "mother" and no daddy.
No. This girl died because somebody raped and drowned her.
The airplane didn't crash because the pilot ran out of fuel. The airplane crashed because the ground jumped up and hit the poor thing.
It's a very bizarre statement to somehow blame her death only on the last final act of violence that occurred to her, and NOT examine the whole trail of violence, dehumanization, and humiliations that were afflicted on her. Apparently her life as abandoned kid and drink and drug and sex were either just fine choices OR unpreventable in a good home.
jerry at August 19, 2008 12:08 PM
[grammarnazi]
inflicted, not afflicted.
[/grammarnazi]
brian at August 19, 2008 12:18 PM
I'll admit, it was uncalled for.
And true, one can "afflict" something upon someone, but "afflicted" tends to be something that just happens, whereas "inflicted" implies malice.
Yes, I'm an asshole. Why do you ask?
brian at August 19, 2008 12:20 PM
"upright Texan homemakers like you feel peachy"
never would've thought of myself as an upright texas homemaker, but the term fits. Although for some reason sounds like it belongs to someone older, with some gray in her hair and some stoutness to her figure.
I went to college, got married, had kids, and now-gasp-am raising them. Not paying some poorly educated twenty-something $7 an hour to do so. Why do people have kids if they don't want to raise them, anyway? Now saying it's got to be the mom, but it should be someone personally invested in the kid. Or is it more important to work some meaningless job to be able to afford the $40,000 SUV?
That's not at all relevent to the topic though. What is relevant is the woman is a drugged out space cadet with no business having or raising kids (thanks for the link to the article!)and Britain needs to do some serious welfare reform. As do we.
momof3 at August 19, 2008 12:33 PM
This is the second time in the last two weeks that you have justified criminal violence against women due to how they lived their lives - aren't you getting bored of it?
isabella bergman at August 19, 2008 12:39 PM
Nobody's justifying violence against women. Don't you trolls ever get tired of misrespresenting (i.e., lying about) others' statements?
If I leave my keys in my car and it gets stolen, the person who stole is a thief and should be prosecuted; however, I enabled him. I made it easy. My lack of responsibility is a contributing factor.
Some behaviors are riskier than others. If you, as an adult (and I'm assuming that although I see little evidence of it), want to engage in risky behavior (bungy jumping, driving with your seatbelt, whatever) and are prepared to accept the consequences, peachy keen, have at it.
Children have no choice. They have to go along for the ride, no matter how ugly or chaotic or deadly the "adult" chooses to make it. Adults, true adults, don't allow children to take the weight for the adults' irresponsibility.
This refusal to make judgements, supposedly out of "compassion", is a contributing cause to children getting dragged along on these risky rides. You're ok with the children being damaged as long as we don't judge the adults.
LauraB at August 19, 2008 1:00 PM
Ah, Princess Klanderella bagging on a white chick to cover her ass.
I've seen your ass, Alkon. Christo couldn't cover it with budget equalling the national debt.
Amy Alkkkon, Whining Victim at August 19, 2008 1:00 PM
Trolls are, by definition, incapable of dealing with reality as we perceive it. Since we aren't the evil pieces of shit they need to have around so they can justify their own pathetic existence, they create us in their own minds, and set out to slay the dragon that is not there.
Most people have grown out of that by the time they put on the big-boy pants, but the ones that haven't hang out at Sadly No, DailyKos, Democratic Underground, TPM Cafe, and other similar locales where their self-congratulation is reinforced.
brian at August 19, 2008 1:03 PM
Its not that the violence is justified isabella, hell nobody here is nominating those who inflicted the violence for a nobel prize.
Every one of us are on board with the idea of very unpleasant consequences towards those who inflicted that final act of violence.
However you miss the point.
The point is that all of that could have been avoided in the FIRST PLACE, if the persons involved had made responsible choices, taken care of their own, and not spent so much time trying not to be free, but free of responsibility for their lives, their actions, and their families welfare.
In the case of Tarika, had she not insisted on getting knocked up repeatedly by dealers, and chosen to shack up with one after the other, there wouldn't have BEEN a drug raid, and she'd still be alive. And more over, she'd have actually been able to take good care of them and provide responsible role models.
In the case of the british woman whose name escapes me, had she taken even the most basic care as a parent, her child would not have been screwing an older man to get a roof and a meal.
A responsible parent does not provide drug dealers as role models.
A responsible parent does not leave a 15 year old girl to live unsupervised with an older man who is barely known to them...and take off for a vacation to India.
A responsible parent works to provide for their child, maybe not every thing, but kids don't need "everything". A few toys to stimulate the imagination, a good education, a good grounding in values and socially acceptable beahvior, and some love & discipline, and a kid will probably turn out OK. Not perfect, but who is?
In these last two persons that have been covered, neither parent provided the necessary guidance or protection, nor the grounding in values or the security of a safe roof over their head, they didn't provide good role models, they didn't care much for fatherly involvement and they didn't care much for how well they could provide for fatherless child after fatherless child.
Perhaps the unfortunate American was not a terrible person, by no account did she beat or berate, but there alot of ways to be a godawful parent, and she chose the ways that eventually lead to her unfortunate fate. Which is to say poverty, and death in a drug raid.
We can blame the cop and the tour guide plenty sure, but neither of those would have been there to do harm, were it not for the bad choices of bad parents.
Kids don't choose their parents, but parents can choose to be good ones or not.
That is the point here, and the most exhasperating part, which has our lady of advice so riled up...is that NOBODY in the normal strains of media or social group leadership has the bollocks to say, "these women were bad mothers, they made bad choices, they were bear no small measure of responsibility in their fates and those of their children."
Instead they're being lauded as examples, the first as a "good mother" when any sane person can see she's not, the second, people purporting to be child rearing experts all but refused to speak critically of, anyone who refuses to judge someone who leaves a 15 year old girl alone with a barely known grown man so the parent can go on vacation...well that person has no judgement atall.
A bad parent is a bad parent, and we shouldn't be coddling these people. We NEED to judge, to criticize, to say, "dude, you suck." to the guy who doesn't take care of his kids, or to the woman in a club at 9 p.m. on a wednesday with 2 kids at home, "Go home and take care of those kids before they rob me in 10 years."
Robert at August 19, 2008 1:03 PM
"This is the second time in the last two weeks that you have justified criminal violence against women due to how they lived their lives - aren't you getting bored of it?" She's not a women she is a 15 yo girl. We are not justifying what happened to her but jumping all over some indigent half literate litter maker for putting her daughter in harms way. The three fuckers physically responsible for her death are now arrested, hopefully never to see the light of day inside an Indian prison.
"Or is it more important to work some meaningless job to be able to afford the $40,000 SUV?" What degree did you get in college that your job would be meaning less?
"Not paying some poorly educated twenty-something $7 an hour to do so." Or you could get a professional live in nanny who has a vested interest in raising them and a shit load of experience.
vlad at August 19, 2008 1:13 PM
Vlad - a nanny's interest is expressly financial. The nanny will never have as personal an interest as a parent in the values and morals to be instilled in that child from the earliest days.
So, if the job that you work to pay for the lease on the fancy SUV and the nanny is keeping you from the child, ditch the job, the SUV, and the nanny, raise the kid, and then go work.
Your kids are only young once. You've got the rest of your life to work.
brian at August 19, 2008 1:16 PM
I've seen your ass, Alkon. Christo couldn't cover it with budget equalling the national debt.
Humor is best when it comes from truth. If you'd seen my ass, you'd know I'm skinny, if anything, and in fantastic shape. Weigh exactly what I did in high school? You?
Look at the photo on your site. See my stomach? Flat, like plate glass. Yours? Come on, show us your big ugly paunch!
What's funny is if you go to the Sadly Pathetic site, and click on some of the linked people there and go to their sites, these are some scary 50-something fat guys.
Amy Alkon at August 19, 2008 1:18 PM
Robert.... That was awesome. I don't think anything else need be said on the subject. That was eloquent and straightforward.
CornerDemon at August 19, 2008 1:21 PM
"Scarlett was always an independent girl, and if she, the mother, could turn the clock back, she would behave exactly the same way again." BTW this points rather starkly to the type of human being this waste of flesh is. "I'd have done the same think KNOWING that to do so would damn my daughter to a horrible death." How the hell can we not judge this?
vlad at August 19, 2008 1:21 PM
This girl died because somebody raped and drowned her.
If you go for final causes, she died because of a lack of oxygen to her brain. There! No-one needs to take any responsibility.
Norman at August 19, 2008 1:22 PM
"Litter Bitch" on another entry and the commenter who blogged as "Amy Alkkkon" are both the same pathetic loser, of course, blogging from:
IP address [?]: 69.108.205.139 [Whois]
IP address country: ip address flag United States
IP address state: California
IP address city: San Leandro
IP address latitude: 37.703499
IP address longitude: -122.148399
ISP of this IP [?]: SBC Internet Services
Organization: SBC Internet Services
Host of this IP: [?]: adsl-69-108-205-139.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [Whois]
Local Time of this IP country: 2008-08-19 13:19
Amy Alkon at August 19, 2008 1:24 PM
"Your kids are only young once. You've got the rest of your life to work." Sure but what the hell are you doing at home once they are in school?
The nanny would be a back stop for when me and the wife get stuck at work, not a constant care person. Once we get home the nanny would normally take care of house work while we spend time with the kids. This would all start at the age of 5 before that one of us will be staying home.
vlad at August 19, 2008 1:25 PM
Well, they're getting bolder by using their own machines now.
brian at August 19, 2008 1:26 PM
Go Robert! That was an awesome post. I'm with CornerDemon. Nuff said.
WolfmanMac at August 19, 2008 1:28 PM
"I've seen your ass, Alkon. Christo couldn't cover it with budget equalling the national debt." Only a half literate butter dumpster would think to use money for clothing. Usually much more effective to spend said money on actual clothing more tasteful too.
vlad at August 19, 2008 1:29 PM
"Well, they're getting bolder by using their own machines now." Or, just dumber.
vlad at August 19, 2008 1:30 PM
>>What is relevant is the woman is a drugged out space cadet with no business having or raising kids (thanks for the link to the article!)and Britain needs to do some serious welfare reform. As do we.
Momof3
"Space cadet" is a happy improvement on your original "pussy-for-rent" description of the woman.
In fact, I agree, sadly, with "space cadet"!
Goa is also about the last place on earth I'd cut a teenager free. Ironically, I always thought it was most>/i> despised as a shithole of western corruption by hardcore alternative lifestyle types - exactly like Fiona MacKeown.
Jody Tresidder at August 19, 2008 1:30 PM
The e-mail I just sent to Isabella Bergman:
Amy Alkon at August 19, 2008 1:36 PM
"Someone tell me again WHY we can't sterilize people?" The reason is simple, who gets to decide if you get sterilized? Puts a bit of a different spin on it.
I think we should really stop rewarding this behavior but as tempting as neutering is we'd only support it if we were the ones making the decision.
vlad at August 19, 2008 1:37 PM
"n fact, I agree, sadly, with "space cadet"!" I think her behavior deserves a bit harsher language than space cadet. Space cadet would be forgetting to grab extra diapers, running short of formula, etc. Leaving your child in a random country with a complete stranger is a bit worse than space cadet.
"Do you really believe that I think violence against women is justified" We need to find an article about some mother leaving her white male son in harms way due to personal negligence so the trolls have neither gender nor race as their stupid card.
vlad at August 19, 2008 1:41 PM
The girl didn't die because she had a single "mother" and no father. She died because she had a crappy mother (which I understand the quote marks imply) and a crappy father (the very definition is not sticking around, especially when the mother is clearly not up to the task).
How come all the single mom-bashers here give him -- and all the fathers of all her other children -- a pass? Doesn't he bear at least half the responsibility for this tragedy?
As a single parent who knows how hard it is every single day even on the best days, and who supports my household on my own, I want to throttle this woman AND the man who didn't stick around to keep his child safe.
Momof3, I'm betting you aren't living large with three little ones at home. But that's still a position of privilege for most people. Lots of moms work out of necessity created by circumstance: divorce, death, or a husband who was downsized to a much lower-paying position. I know a stay-at-home dad who had to go back to work when his wife's company instigated an across-the-board pay cut. Ok, off topic, sorry.
JulieA at August 19, 2008 1:51 PM
"She died because she had a crappy mother (which I understand the quote marks imply) and a crappy father (the very definition is not sticking around, especially when the mother is clearly not up to the task)." Completely agreed on this.
"Lots of moms work out of necessity created by circumstance: divorce, death, or a husband who was downsized to a much lower-paying position." Which becomes a really big problem ifthe stay at home has been completely out of the work force as opposed to working part time just to stay current.
vlad at August 19, 2008 1:55 PM
Amy,
The attacks against you by the “progressives” and others are a sure sign that your ideals are not only correct, but incontrovertible truths as well.
It's further indication that your career as a Syndicated Advice Columnist, Journalist and Blogger has reached a new and laudable level.
A level that will command even more respect, notoriety, credibility, and of course more vile and hateful attacks.
I've read through many of the comments in recent posts, and was surprised that more people didn't comment on the "intelligence" of these "progressives."
I believe that you mentioned something about it (however I cannot locate your comment) in passing.
The lack of intelligence in most of those who attack you at “SadlyNothing” isn't the least bit funny. Rather, it's downright frightening.
Many of the simple-minded people who denigrate and attack you do so not just because they disagree with you, but also because they simply cannot intellectualize and thereby comprehend the extreme seriousness of what you say.
As you know, many of those who regularly post here are very intelligent people. They engage in spirited debate that’s not only highly intellectual, but very productive as well.
On the other hand, your detractors are without the necessary mental faculties to engage yourself and others here in debate. Debates whereby a normal and reasonably intelligent person defends their position using facts and logic, not with irrationally based ignorant arguments formulated by raging and out-of-control emotions.
Out of utter frustration from being unable to defend and justify their misguided beliefs against an opposing viewpoint, one they can’t intellectualize to begin with, they attack not only your persona, but you as a person.
These liberal fascists deploy their usual tactics. Tactics, that includes making false accusations against those who disagree with them. Accusations, which in reality, are the foundations of hateful ideologies that they themselves espouse, support and represent.
Why did I state in a preceding paragraph that their lack of intelligence is frightening? It’s because these people such as those at “SadlySo” are actually afforded credibility and integrity.
While the global decimation of fatherhood continues, the mainstream media doesn’t just ignore the carnage; they contribute to its destruction out of “political correctness.”
Contrary to the name of the organization I founded (Ohio Council for Fathers Rights) (OCFFR) implying we are confined to Ohio, we receive international requests for assistance from desperate fathers as well. Pleas such as this email received only hours ago:
A French father (Ivan) recently petitioned us for help regarding his twin boys. They were internationally abducted from France to Ohio. His ex-wife was provided an illegal safe haven for her deplorable act by Warren County's Judge Oliver. Numerous US judges and magistrates refused to honor a French Court's order to return the boys to France.
As explained on our blog, Ivan has staged a hunger strike and refuses to take food until he can see those two boys he so desperately loves. I have pleaded with him not to starve himself to death, as his body (evidenced by pictures on our blog) is seriously distressed from lack of food.
Please understand that I’m not a misogynist and that I believe in equal rights. However, given the nature of OCFFR, I am only involved in “horror stories”. Stories involving fathers whose lives (and the lives of many of their children as well) are forever ruined by those abnormal types of “mothers” that Amy rightfully rebukes for their behaviors.
These same mothers are often times sanctified and victimized by the mainstream media after suffering from the consequences of their reckless decisions. They are offered sympathy and support for their repeated and often times destructive decisions that are without any regard for the best interests and welfare of their children.
What I described does not pertain to most loving and caring mothers. It pertains to those that Amy often times writes about and reprimands. Likewise it pertains to those whose destruction and carnage in the lives of fathers and children is mitigated by the many father’s rights, children’s rights, non-custodial parent’s rights advocates and organizations.
Finally, it also pertains to those same mothers whose very existence is refused acknowledgment by the feminists, misandrists, and fascists such as SimplyNo.
Keep up the great work Amy! Your tireless efforts on behalf of fathers and children are commendable and appreciated more than you will ever know.
Tony Fantetti
President
Ohio Council for Fathers Rights
Tony Fantetti at August 19, 2008 2:06 PM
That's rather an interesting question.
I don't know how to assign blame in this case for a couple reasons. First, I didn't read the source article, so I don't know the circumstances of his absence. Second, if he'd been absent for a significant portion of the girl's life, how much responsibility can be laid upon him?
If he ran off, not caring what happened, and/or knowing that the mother was unfit, then sure, he bears responsibility, just as surely as Russell Yates should have.
But if he was chased away and kept away, then no, I can't blame him. There's only so much you can do if the mother decides that you don't get to see the children you helped create.
brian at August 19, 2008 2:20 PM
This woman doesn't deserve to be a mother, and I feel sorry for her surviving children. Doesn't she realize that it's her job as a mother to PROTECT and CARE FOR her kids? Leaving your 15 year-old daughter to prostitute herself for a place to stay is not PROTECTING or CARING FOR her child. Now she wants to sob and cry and say she wasn't negligent, just naive? BULLSHIT! I'm naive, so I should know. I like to believe that people are good, but I still wouldn't trust my daughter to a total stranger.
She comes across to me as someone who makes a career out of being on welfare. I just don't understand people like that. The most humiliating thing I've ever had to do was go on assistance three years ago, and the most ego-boosting things that have happened since then were the letters I got from housing and HHS telling me that my assistance was being cancelled DUE TO INCOME!!! I want to frame these letters. I got one last month (HHS), and the other last week (housing).
Ok, I'm off my soapbox now. It's safe to come out.
Sandy at August 19, 2008 2:27 PM
It's a good question. I'll answer it, and I'll surely get a lot of hate for it.
By and large, men have no legal rights over, or to, their children; women have almost all rights over, and to, their children. It is a commonplace of justice that rights and responsibilities are directly proportional. Then since mothers have more rights, fathers have fewer responsibilities.
The choice to get pregnant is a woman's, not a man's. The choice to birth the fetus is the woman's not the man's. All of the crucial decisions surrounding the fate of a child are in the hands of the mother only.
It's her body. It's her choice. It's her child. So, it's mostly her responsibility.
In this case, a father of one of Ms. MacKeown's children has no right to even see the children. The fathers are prevented from interfering in the mother's choices, at pain of prison! How can you blame the fathers, when they can be arrested for attempting to improve the lot of their kids? You can't.
Am I claiming that men have no responsibilities? No. I am claiming that women have more responsibilities than men because they have more rights. The ultimate decision of whether to get pregnant is a woman's because it's her body.
Certainly, men should support their children. Certainly men should be involved in their children's lives. But the two go together. British courts cannot enforce child visitation orders. Men are asked to pay for children they can't even see, pay for children they can be arrested for seeing.
In the US, men are expected to pay for children they see only rarely, to pay even when the mother moves away or refuses to allow visitation. Men can actually be jailed for seeing their children during non-visitation periods. Women are under no obligation to prove child support monies are spent on the children.
It is always right for an individual man to care for his children. Simultaneously, it is foolish policy to expect that, in the aggregate, men will do the right thing even when the mother isn't.
At law, children belong to the mother. If you want more responsible fathering in the aggregate, you'll have to give men more rights.
Jeff at August 19, 2008 2:30 PM
Welfare was a good idea once apon a time, in the sixties and seventies men were walking out of their marrages and leaving women and their children destitute. Fast forward to today and it's become a career choice, in England they are allowed to have cradle to grave welfare. Welfare was suppose to be a hand up and a handout, it was never meant to burden the taxpayer for a life time. Sadly under socialism welfare has blossomed into an industry. Socialist governments love welfare because it keeps people poor and needy. The children are the real victims, how much self esteem can one have to sleep around and give birth to mulitiple children for MONEY? Under a socialist government the state pays the parent to act as an administraiter for their child instead of parent said children. That child died because the parent did what all good socialist do, she ceded her childs saftey over to a stranger as she was taught to under NuLabour Government.
I find it hard to be angry with her, she is acting like she was programed to act. England has replaced "Fathers" with welfare, they even openly admit they are striving for a "Fatherless" society. How's that for twisted?
I consider single parenting and welfare parenting two seperate issues, blaming single moms or dads for the state of welfare isn't fair. Many work themselves half to death to feed their children.
Rose at August 19, 2008 2:45 PM
"In the US, men are expected to pay for children they see only rarely, to pay even when the mother moves away or refuses to allow visitation."
In some states, (like the one I live in) they automatically garnish the wages of the father, without even giving him the chance to pay on his own. My BF has his garnished for his 16 year-old son.
"Women are under no obligation to prove child support monies are spent on the children."
This is also true. BF's son has to buy himself clothes & such out of money he makes at his part-time job. What is the child support for if not for clothes & food? It pisses me off!
Sandy at August 19, 2008 2:49 PM
>>"n fact, I agree, sadly, with "space cadet"!"
>>I think her behavior deserves a bit harsher language than space cadet. Space cadet would be forgetting to grab extra diapers, running short of formula, etc. Leaving your child in a random country with a complete stranger is a bit worse than space cadet.
Vlad,
Yup - "space cadet" is a bit feeble!
The background stuff, though, is baffling.
The mother isn't the standard welfare queen - in that she seems to have doggedly pursued an off-the-grid existence in the UK - not easy with the weather! - had the staunch approval of a local head teacher for her general upbringing of her motley family/attitude to education etc - yet she wasn't indifferent to the social disapproval of her way of life & how this attitude affected her children.
Hence the experimental move to Goa for its more relaxed "hippy vibe" - as she put it. Which, given Goa's reputation as seaside sewer of local scammers and creeps and western trust fund slummers looking for a good time out of their heads, just seems bizarre.
Maybe I'm over thinking the Goa bit.
Maybe it was just incredible stupidity on her part.
But then she fights - pretty effectively & against the odds - for some local justice for her daughter after the murder...?
Jody Tresidder at August 19, 2008 2:53 PM
"If you'd seen my ass, you'd know I'm skinny, if anything, and in fantastic shape. Weigh exactly what I did in high school? You?"
I can hear women hissing for blocks around - even those who haven't read this.
Radwaste at August 19, 2008 3:30 PM
> Trolls are being removed with alacrity
AAAAAAA----MMMMYY....
It's only one troll. Why can't you believe this? What evidence do you have, outside of the comments themsevelves, that it's not?
Crid at August 19, 2008 3:44 PM
I believe there are many good fathers out there, and that some of them come up against selfish or stupid exes who aren't acting in their children's best interests.
But oh please, cry me a river on how hard most fathers have it.
First, while Amy tries to show "inner city" girls what a foolish path early motherhood is (and it is), who's out there telling the same things to teenage boys? Those babies aren't being created in test tubes. Those are. . .fathers, whether they act like them or not.
I highly doubt a woman with, what was it, nine children by five men, was chasing them away. Plus I'm betting that when a man meets a woman with, say, seven kids by four men, that man isn't looking to stick around in case he makes the eighth. How about the previous woman Amy wrote about? I didn't read all of it -- I was in seventh grade once and have no intention of repeating it thanks to middle-age trolls -- but I didn't notice anyone pointing out that the fathers of her children contributed to the tragedy of her and her children's lives by 1. dealing drugs and thus putting their families in danger and 2. abandoning their children.
Crappy dads, crappy dads, crappy dads, like I said. Who made babies with crappy moms.
Look, I know some men get chased away. But I know of a whole lot more who mostly walked away without any prodding. Sure, they want holidays or two weekends a month or. . .But the real job of parenting, the real cost of parenting, nah, I don't know too many who do anything more than make angry anti-woman noise about that (although I do know some and admire them all).
I live in the land of single mothers (I'm not here by choice). We watch each other's children, we cover in case of emergencies, we lend money when the unexpected happens. Never ONCE has any of the children's fathers offered to take a gaggle of kids at the last minute, or offered to miss a full week of work because one of the kid's got the latest virus going around, or turned down an intellectually challenging, higher paying job because it really isn't fair to drop the kids off at precare at 7:30 a.m. and have a nanny pick them up at 6 p.m. and maybe get home to tuck them in at 8:30 p.m.
That's parenting: sacrificing each and every time because that's the deal you made with the universe when you brought a baby into it.
So where are all these men paying child support through the nose to such a degree that it covers all those hours of lost work and opportunities that almost always -- not always, but let's be real, usually -- fall to the single mother who is typically also working full-time.
Maybe the men who stand up and try to do right by their children should help go after the men who refuse to pay for their children or spend time with their children or stand up for their children. Their the ones building the bad rap for you.
Oh, Amy, an aside: A friend is visiting and saw the mass of spam on your site and said, "Those are the crank telephone calls of our age." I thought that was dead-on.
JulieA at August 19, 2008 3:56 PM
Rose, you wrote:
Welfare was a good idea once apon a time, in the sixties and seventies men were walking out of their marriages and leaving women and their children destitute.
I find it fascinating that you would write that only to follow it up with the EXACT reasons as to why welfare was NEVER a good idea.
Welfare is nothing more than a tool used by government to create an underclass of dependence to be easily manipulated and controlled. It's no mystery...when you subsidize a certain behavior, you get more of it. Pay women to have kids without marriage or at least having a dependable father stick around, and you get more of that behavior.
Aside from that, if you want to talk about leaving children destitute, look no further than the advent of feminist sponsored "no-fault" (which really means "unilateral") divorce.
Dave from Hawaii at August 19, 2008 3:58 PM
First, while Amy tries to show "inner city" girls what a foolish path early motherhood is (and it is), who's out there telling the same things to teenage boys?
Actually, I talk to boys and girls at the same time, but I put a special emphasis on telling the girls this, because they tend to think they can have a baby as a shortcut to doing the hard work to have a self and a career in a way guys don't.
And welfare was NEVER a good idea. From what Gregg, who's a historian told me, the black family fell apart and Detroit went downhill in the wake of welfare...and the black family (in Detroit, at least) was very much like every family until welfare.
Amy Alkon at August 19, 2008 4:04 PM
Amy, here's an article by Kay Hymowitz from City Journal that gives a thorough background on that very topic:
The Black Family: 40 Years of Lies
Dave from Hawaii at August 19, 2008 4:22 PM
I'm sure it has been proposed before, but how about subsidizing sterilization? Offer some 18 year old girls about $10k to get them tube-tied. Hell, offer $2k for guys to get snipped. This might sound evil, but good golly it would save billions in welfare costs, not to mention lowering the crime rate in the same way that legalized abortion has led to lower crime rates. I'll bet the Undercover Economist would agree with me, and could probably estimate the actual market price for exiting yourself from the gene pool.
Sterling at August 19, 2008 4:38 PM
"I'm sure it has been proposed before, but how about subsidizing sterilization? Offer some 18 year old girls about $10k to get them tube-tied. Hell, offer $2k for guys to get snipped. This might sound evil, but good golly it would save billions in welfare costs, not to mention lowering the crime rate in the same way that legalized abortion has led to lower crime rates."
Sure it's been proposed before...by folks like Hitler and Margaret Sanger.
It's called "Eugenics."
Better to end the perverse system of subsidizing bastardy and breaking up intact families in the first place.
Dave from Hawaii at August 19, 2008 4:46 PM
Rose--read some history, like Pat Moynihan. Welfare regulations forced fathers out of the family.
And Scarlett's mother had done jail time before. This story is so weird.
Rathbone at August 19, 2008 4:58 PM
"Vlad - a nanny's interest is expressly financial. The nanny will never have as personal an interest as a parent in the values and morals to be instilled in that child from the earliest days.
So, if the job that you work to pay for the lease on the fancy SUV and the nanny is keeping you from the child, ditch the job, the SUV, and the nanny, raise the kid, and then go work.
Your kids are only young once. You've got the rest of your life to work."
Thank you Brian, for making my point more clear for me. See, even we have common ground. And most any job is meaningless if it's taking you from your little kids.
If I hear one more expediton-driving, blackberry toting, nanny-hiring, dinner-out-eating, gymboree-paying married woman talk about how she's "got to work to pay the bills" I'm gonna puke.
momof3 at August 19, 2008 5:36 PM
>>...paying married woman talk about how she's "got to work to pay the bills" I'm gonna puke.
Momof3
Not sure I'm getting this?
If she does all the annoying things you list - but she's, say, a medical doctor or similar with kids - do you still feel the same?
Jody Tresidder at August 19, 2008 6:05 PM
but she's, say, a medical doctor or similar with kids - do you still feel the same?
I would, if one parent or the other cant raise the children why are you having kids?
lujlp at August 19, 2008 6:23 PM
"Momof3
Not sure I'm getting this?
If she does all the annoying things you list - but she's, say, a medical doctor or similar with kids - do you still feel the same?"
I think kids should be raised (as in, the person caring for them all day every day, not kissing them at night right before bedtime) by someone with a vested interest in the kid. Preferably, the mom or dad (or one of the moms, or one of the dads. Gay couples can be good stable parents. They can also be crappy parents. But that's beside the point). I make no mention of it having to be the mom. Nor do I care what the job is the parent is working. What I was talking about in my above post that you quoted, was the women who clearly do not NEED to work, but WANT to have all the expensive trappings of life. They say they "have to work" to pay the bills, all the while sporting very expensive completely unnecessary accessories. If you want to have kids, the first question you need to ask yourself is "who is going to be raising it". If your Escalade is more important than one of you being home to care for that child, do not have the child. Get a kitten or something instead.
Yes, some moms, and most dads, do actually have to work. A lot do not, they just don't want to make the lifestyle changes not working would require. And that is selfish.
momof3 at August 19, 2008 6:36 PM
When my brothers and I were growing up, my father worked as many as three jobs to make sure that mom could stay home and take care of us and the house.
That was the deal. She cared for the kids, cooked, cleaned, etc. Dad worked, did the maintenance, etc.
Once we were old enough to be in school all day, mom got a part-time job, and we (meaning me) got stuck doing some of the cleaning and maintenance.
But it worked. She wound up with three self-sufficient sons.
Ask me how much I like dusting some time.
brian at August 19, 2008 9:06 PM
Which shows you've missed the point. Legally, fathers aren't parents because they have no legal rights. Legally, fathers are just paychecks. Lots of women with custody ensure fathers stay that way.
Actually every divorced man I know, with children, has tried to get joint custody. Every one of their wives fought it tooth and nail. Not one man got it. So cry me a river if you didn't seek joint custody to help with all these terrible problems.
Maybe the men who stand up and try to do right by their children should help go after the men who refuse to pay for their children or spend time with their children or stand up for their children. Their the ones building the bad rap for you. (JulieA)
This is true to some degree. It's also true that the legal system is against fathers. It's also true that mothers are very often against fathers. It's also true that mothers renege on child support at higher rates than fathers. The system is stacked against men.
I advocate presumptive joint custody. That means no child support, equal parenting, equal costs, equal access to the children, neither parent can alienate the other, neither parent can move the children away, and most importantly each parent has a say in the parenting choices. Almost every woman's organization is against the idea.
Suspicious isn't it.
Jeff at August 19, 2008 9:13 PM
Thanks for that reply, momof3.
I'm a lot less prescriptive than you.
On the other hand, I've no doubt my own theories are somewhat self-serving and are just another way of insisting - this was what worked best for us and our kids in our circumstances!
Jody Tresidder at August 19, 2008 9:14 PM
Robert -- I agree, except for it being a bad sign to be in a club at 9 p.m. Wednesday -- my standing sitter night. I put 'em to bed, have a sitter come, and off I go (tho usually just to dinner).
Amy - That's great. But I think boys need to hear from men, especially boys who lack male role models. I volunteered for years in an anti-poverty program and used to tell them: The best reason not to join a gang is because you could get shot, and if you get shot in the wrong place you will never have sex again. Ever. Now go home and think about that.
Jeff - I'll grant you mothers make the early key decisions. Question back: Who usually decides not to wear a condom?
I don't know where you live, but the California courts have repeatedly refused to allow mothers to relocate in order to take better jobs or to surround themselves with familial support. I'm not buying the stacked against all men lament; that was then, this is now. A friend's daughter just returned from EIGHT WEEKS of Colorado court-ordered visitation with the father who regularly beat her mother (irrefutable).
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I oppose joint physical custody, at least in the early years. It's a nice theory, but real life is messier than that. To me, a father's demand that his child live one place 50 percent of the time and 50 percent in another is as selfish and as wrong for a young child as a mother who refuses easy access because she's angry. (That's not to say that sometimes the better parent to live with isn't the dad.)
(FYI, in 6th-7th grades I went back and forth between households and hated it. The stuff I wanted was always in another place; if I was on one side of town, the party I desperately wanted to attend was inevitably on the other. I couldn't participate in extracurricular activities because I had a commute. I finally put my foot down.)
Kids need structure. I do think there should be liberal visitation agreements and a lot of flexibility whenever possible, but it has to go both ways. Dad doesn't get to travel for work and stick mom with all of the parenting except when it's convenient for him. Dad doesn't get to move in with a woman he's been dating for a few months. Every decision can't be mutual, not even among married couples. Sometimes someone has to decide.
Mothers are against fathers? What is that supposed to mean? What about fathers who cheat, hence the divorce? How was that thinking of the kids? Fathers who found it preferable to be at the office rather than home, hence the breakup? Fathers who refuse to pay anything approaching reasonable support WITHOUT a huge court fight. Of my immediate circle of six single moms, only two went to court -- because their exes would not pay a penny for the children; one went to mediation, and the other three operate without any formal agreements and all wish their exes (they weren't married) would see their children more even though not a one pays more than $500 a month despite decent incomes. Park district summer camp runs $225 a week and doesn't offer enough hours for a working single mom. The all-day Y is around $300. How many dads are volunteering to cough up that cash -- or to derail their careers by telling the boss that for the summer they will have to leave at 2 p.m. every day because the only affordable camp ends at 2:30 p.m.? How many fathers would really forfeit career advancement (and satisfaction) to do what it takes to raise a child 50 percent of the time without turning much of the work over to daycare or nannies or girlfriends or new wives? I know exactly two, and they're both rich, really really rich, and without those sort of worries.
Here's where I have to mention I love men and I love my own dad. Dads are essential, no argument there. But I think there are a lot more fathers who want access without realistic economic responsibility than dads who are paying through the wazoo and are being denied access to their children.
Brian - Are you saying all jobs are expressly financial? That you can't get personal satisfaction or take pride in a task well done or, I dunno, love what you do (like Amy does)? Why can't a nanny feel the same way.
JulieA at August 20, 2008 12:11 AM
Ugh, sorry, didn't realize that was so long. It looks like troll spam!
JulieA at August 20, 2008 12:12 AM
What about fathers who cheat, hence the divorce?
What about the mother who withhold sex for so long that its just eaiser to cheat?
Fathers who found it preferable to be at the office rather than home, hence the breakup?
As opposed to fathers who dont put in the extar hours and never get promotions or raises and are left for not providing enough?
Park district summer camp runs $225 a week and doesn't offer enough hours for a working single mom. The all-day Y is around $300
Why do you have to put them in such expensive day care? Why does no one go to summer camp anymore? I remeber going to scout camps for close to three weeks on less than a hunndered dollars, or
Why not form a commune wherin on parent has the kids for a day and you rotate?
Or perhaps if Non custodial parents got more than 2 weeks in the summer they would not just use their vacation time
There is more than just one side to these situatons
lujlp at August 20, 2008 1:45 AM
Insomnia. Argh.
Lujlp - I agree there are two sides to these situations -- although I don't believe there is always his truth and her truth. Sometimes there's just the truth, whoever's it may be.
Of course women are to blame for some breakups. I'm saying that men are, too. This notion that mothers are against fathers (or vice versa) is a ridiculously sweeping generalization. And how is it ever easier to cheat if you know the outcome will be the end of your family? Same for withholding sex (although I do think Amy's right in that if one of the partners gains 100 pounds, well, what do they expect? There's for better and for worse and for goodness sake you're crushing me). That's just passive-aggressive parenting.
And staying late at the office because you find it rewarding or because it turns out crying kids drive you crazy is not the same as working your ass off to earn as much as you can for your family. (Then again, how much is enough? Cause I know men who put in 80-hour weeks so they can buy all those gadgets momof3 berates women for joining the workforce to get. What's the difference?)
But give me a break on the camp prices. When and where exactly did you attend camp for close to three weeks for under $100? I was citing CHEAP camps around these parts. There is no "daycare" for kids over the age of 3.
Commune would be great. Could you call my employer and demand one day a week off for me? But could you please ask that it not impact my performance or salary review, since I'm the head of a household? (I'm right in there with Amy; if I want to earn like a man, I have to work like a man, no special treatment required.)
Oh, and would the dads with full-time jobs participate in this one-day-a-week arrangement, too, or just the single working moms?
JulieA at August 20, 2008 2:47 AM
Oh, and would the dads with full-time jobs participate in this one-day-a-week arrangement, too, or just the single working moms?
Right? How often do you hear the dads complaining about how hard it is to juggle a career and a family? o_O
Flynne at August 20, 2008 5:37 AM
I agree that while alternative lifestyles can be fine, expecting taxpayers to pay for them is wrong.
I agree that the woman sounds irresponsible, what with the million different dads and all.
I don't agree that the homicide of her daughter was inevitable as a result of this, though.
I'm not sure why she left the daughter with the man... we are not given details. Maybe she had a reason to trust him, maybe he was a friend of a friend. I've certainly known people from all walks of life to leave their child with a near-stranger to be watched for a little while.
I don't know if she was part of a community.. but I know there are different communities in which people DO sometimes watch each others' kids and help each other out... church groups, interest groups, lifestyle groups etc. I've certainly been asked to watch strangers' kids before at religious festivals.
I wouldn't say those people were being horrible and negligent. I don't know what the setting was like in the hippie beach community.
The fact that Britain shouldn't pay for trips for welfare folks is a different matter. And maybe she was a horrible mother, maybe she was insane, maybe the guy was drooling all over the daughter. But I feel like I just don't know enough about the situation to condemn her for leaving her daughter with the guy. If she KNEW that the guy would only let the daughter stay if she had sex, well, obviously that's horrible, and yes, she's a monster. But we don't know that she knew. She might have had good reasons for thinking her child would be safe.
NicoleK at August 20, 2008 8:18 AM
Or maybe she just didn't give a fuck.
brian at August 20, 2008 8:24 AM
NicoleK - "If she KNEW that the guy would only let the daughter stay if she had sex, well, obviously that's horrible, and yes, she's a monster."
I've nothing to back it up, but my very first impression upon reading the item was that she had, in fact, "pimped" her daughter out to the tour guide.
Why, exactly, would a mother leave one underage dependent (out of many) to travel to another local? And, you wouldn't expect either the mother nor the tour guide to "cop" to that having been the arrangement.
Perhaps I have an overly jaded view of the welfare class, but I can easily imagine a welfare queen selling off one of her children for some extra traveling cash.
slwerner at August 20, 2008 9:00 AM
I should have added, that, some years back, there was a local (Denver, CO) case, in which a man HAD sold his infant daughter for drugs - so, I don't think I'm making that big a "stretch" to suspect a similar motivation in this case.
slwerner at August 20, 2008 9:03 AM
>>Perhaps I have an overly jaded view of the welfare class, but I can easily imagine a welfare queen selling off one of her children for some extra traveling cash.
slwerner,
Not saying your theory is wrong - it just doesn't fit here.
If you look at the interview (linked by Amy way above), the woman had a values system that you may well regard as completely cracked & a kind of ascetic parasitism - but it doesn't seem to include the evil sort of exchange you describe.
Jody Tresidder at August 20, 2008 9:32 AM
Jody Tresidder - "If you look at the interview..."
Granted, this woman does appear to be the type of person I had initially take her for.
However, given that she was nearly out of money, I'm still of the opinion that the finacial consideration of "one less mouth to feed" played into Fiona MacKeown decision to let her daughter stay behind.
slwerner at August 20, 2008 10:09 AM
Oops! Meant to say "...this woman does not appear..."
slwerner at August 20, 2008 10:10 AM
All,
Please understand that it was not my intent to turn this thread into a father's right's discussion. Therefore, I apologize for posting comments that altered the course of comments.
My intent was to highlight the type of "moms" that many feminists won't acknowledge, and that Amy sometimes rebukes in her columns.
That said, and out of respect for Amy, please consider the content of Amy's column (not my comments) when you comment. I do not wish to
further detract from the seriousness of the ongoing viscous and coordinated attack against Amy by the "progressives" at SimplyStupid!
Sincerely,
Tony Fantetti
Tony Fantetti at August 20, 2008 1:26 PM
What???? She is on public assistance and is able to save up to go on vacation? How about save up to build a house for her kids? Then, to top that off, she leaves her 15 year old with someone she doesn't know in a foreign country? She should be charged at a minimum with:
1. Child endangerment
2. Child abandonment
3. Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor(is this even on the books anymore?)
4. Negligence
And probably a whole lot more.
She lived in a Caravan? With no running water or i'm guessing sewage. Lovely home environment. But hey, She'll let the working taxpayers fund her baby making operation. Lovely.
This lady should be in jail and her children should be in foster care. PERIOD>
wolfboy69 at August 20, 2008 2:47 PM
How often do you hear the dads complaining about how hard it is to juggle a career and a family? o_O
Quite often. It's phrased a bit differently, but it's certainly said and meant with all seriousness.
Rob Crawford at August 20, 2008 4:30 PM
I said:
She might have had good reasons for thinking her child would be safe.
Brian said:
Or maybe she just didn't give a fuck.
I say:
Yeah, maybe she didn't. The point is, we don't know. I do know that there are communities in which people feel safe leaving their children with other members of the community, even if they don't know them well. Given the mom's extreme crunchiness, that is a possibility.
Of course, she might have just not given a shit. She might have pimped her daughter. She might have a lot of things. The point is... WE DON'T KNOW.
And parents can't keep their kids in a cage. There are lots of times teenagers will be staying with friends, staying with sitters, being taught, etc. Things can happen to kids during that time. Kids do amazingly stupid shit. Most of the time, nothing happens.
The welfare stuff while helping paint the picture, is another issue. I don't think that we can make the general assumption that being on welfare leads to your kid being raped, drowned, and having her kidneys removed as a general rule. This is a pretty extreme case. It seems like a freak event, like that girl who went on a school trip to Aruba and got kidnapped.
NicoleK at August 20, 2008 6:11 PM
One critical difference - the girl in Aruba was chaperoned by someone who was, one presumes, vetted by someone who was in a position to know better.
This lady did no such thing. And that frightens me. If someone I didn't know said "hey, watch my kid for a week, ok?" the answer would be "hells no."
brian at August 20, 2008 6:20 PM
And parents can't keep their kids in a cage. There are lots of times teenagers will be staying with friends, staying with sitters, being taught, etc - NicoleK
What the FUCK
So your saying it just part of groeing up for a mother to leave her 15 yr old daughter with a forign tour guide in the third world?
This was a guy the mother knew for LESS THAN A WEEK - and she left her 15 yr old daught with him in some fishing villiage just out side of a tourist trap while she her boyfreind and 7 other kids continued their tour around India?
Tell me Nicole would you leave your 15 yr old daughter in the care of some 30 yr old seasonal tour guide in Maztalan who barely speaks einglish while you and your boyfreid decided to go check out Cancun?
lujlp at August 22, 2008 2:40 AM
Yep, this bitch is as big an asshole as Tarika.
These stories are making me think it's time to do away with welfare. The only thing that gives me pause is the kids who'd go without heat and food because of their asshole parents. And the kids are the innocents.
This bitch should be extradicted and jailed.
And don't give me this paid babysitter crap! How carefully could this guy have been screened. NO, getting some (and possibly making yet another innocent victim) was more important than her daughter, plain and simple. And we're supposed to believe -- by what stretch of the imagination -- Mom's got absolutely nothing to do with kids being on drugs and alcohol?
She should be extradicted, jailed and forcibly sterilized!
T's Grammy at August 23, 2008 11:12 AM
Leave a comment