Oh, just wait till California defaults and y'all ask the rest of us for a bailout!

Just Re-name them Free Food. That should increase the numbers.

I just dont get the whole "if we rename x to y people wont think its bad anymore".

Giving your race a new name isnt going to make racists like you. Giving your handicap a new name isnt going to stop people from pitying you. Giving you mental illness a new name is just going to make people use the new name as an insult.

Typing with one hand sorry bout typos. Holding the new kid with other!

I want no stigma attached to putting food into the mouths of poor children. None.

If I have to give up stimatizing the mother or father of poor kids in order to make sure poor kids eat a healthy meal three times a day, that is a trade I will happily make, since imposing that stigma is not worth a damn thing to me.

Also, pointing to Octomom in public policy discussion is not really sound thinking: she represents an extreme outlier, and you should not build public policy around reactions to such people.

> I just dont get the whole "if we rename
> x to y people wont think its bad anymore".

This is something you should discuss with the kids in the Human Resources department, OK? And stop flirting with that flight attendant!

In AZ gas station are now able to acceot food stamps.

I'm sorry but I dont spend my own money to buy a bag of potatoe chips at twice the price, so why does some one spending my tax dollars get to? For that matter why are they allowed to buy chips and soda and candy at all on food stamps?

Why isnt a program like that limited to real food?

Spartee, the truly poor will get the food stamps despite the stigma. Then there are those who just want things cheap or free. Let's not encourage them to live off the public teat.

Feed the children.

Here's a good piece on this:

http://www.worldnewsheardnow.com/entitlement-re-branding-semantics-for-a-socialist-cause/3522/

The semantics game with public assistance has been going on for years. When it was first created, FDR’s welfare program was called a “relief check”. People who were desperate- mostly in cities, or people who were unable to care for themselves in some way, applied for, and received these checks until they could do better. It was considered a shame, and no one ever wanted their friends and neighbors to know they had received the money. Later, it was called, “Welfare Check”. Sometime in the 1960’s, with the counter-culture movement, it became socially acceptable to receive public assistance. For most of my life, I have known people who received welfare benefits. Almost all of them were perfectly sturdy enough to help themselves. Since the government was willing to pay their rent in an apartment, buy their food, and even subsidize their utilities, and child care, they thought there was no reason for them to work. One of the few good things Bill Clinton did was to force some people off welfare by requiring they go to school or work after two years on welfare, and many states stopped raising payments with each child, so people might stop birthing babies like laying hens.

1) What stigma? Most of these programs are now administered using a debit card. It is visually indistinguishable from someone paying with a credit card.

2) The surveys show that Californians still may elect JERRY BROWN. Sorry - if you are such idiots that these races are still close, I have no pity for you.

Let programs like these swamp the budget if it's the only way the fruit-n-nut-folks will come to their senses.

" . . to provide free medical, financial and educational services to low-income women."

I guess low income men can just go fuck themselves. How is this not sexist?

Ya know, the Personal Responsibility Crowd does have a habit of cherry picking the most nutjob, egregious case of abuse - or let's say "questionable utilization of public support," then reporting and commenting as if "Octomom" (for example) is one of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF WELFARE MOMS, abusing the system.

Really? C'mon...

And while we're on the subject, why are so many of you so concerned about government aid to kids and families (TINY portion of the budget) while I never see anything about the Gazillions in government handouts to insanely-profitable industries like the pharmaceutical industry, petroleum or defense?

Just asking.

I guess low income men can just go fuck themselves. How is this not sexist?

It is, but I also see it as yet another sign that single motherhood has become an accepted way of life.

Never mind preparing to raise children by finding a partner to do it with, and taking steps to save money and plan for eventualities. No, just spread your legs and know that you can go on public assistance.

I want no stigma attached to putting food into the mouths of poor children. None.

If I have to give up stimatizing the mother or father of poor kids in order to make sure poor kids eat a healthy meal three times a day, that is a trade I will happily make, since imposing that stigma is not worth a damn thing to me.

Because there are ALWAYS going to be poor people having children, and it's up to the REST of us to take care of those children, and if you even begin to suggest that people not have kids they can't afford, you're a eugenicist, and so on, etc.

I am all for shaming people who have children they can't afford to take care of. Because clearly handing them a check every month isn't doing the trick - wonder of wonders, they just have MORE kids!

And while we're on the subject, why are so many of you so concerned about government aid to kids and families (TINY portion of the budget) while I never see anything about the Gazillions in government handouts to insanely-profitable industries like the pharmaceutical industry, petroleum or defense?

This is a single blog item, not a Tolstoy length work on my feelings about government handouts of all kinds. I blog about how I hate that stuff, too.

Here:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/mt4/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=2&search=corporate+welfare

" . . to provide free medical, financial and educational services to low-income women."

I guess low income men can just go fuck themselves. How is this not sexist?

- Steve Daniels

"It is, but I also see it as yet another sign that single motherhood has become an accepted way of life."

- Amy

The quote says "low-income women". No mention that they are single mothers.

Can you imagine any government program targeted to help men that was not available to women?

No mention that they are single mothers.

Good point.

CA's budget is in the red, yet there was money to pay to redesign the logo and create the marketing campaign. Then there's all the materials, stationary, etc. with the old logo that we have paid for that will be added to our landfill.

It sounds like a douche. In oh! so many ways.

If you read the story, you'll see that the rebranding wasn't all that expensive. Stupid, but not expensive.

I have used food stamps. I didn't like using them, and I changed my situation as fast as I could. I believe that's the point of the whole stigma thing, to keep people from being so comfortable with handouts. Which in my opinion is how it should be.

Just out of curiosity are there any studies on the affects of shaming counter culture groups? Will shaming help stop women from screwing shit men or will it make fucking the system an even high badge of honor. Crack whores don't have shame otherwise they wouldn't be crack whores. Yes this is an extreme but illustrative.

Responsible parents will feels ashamed of not supporting their kids, no public indicator of welfare needed. Shit parents just plain won't give a shit. These would be the same ones that trade FS at 0.25 (some times 0.10) on the dollar for cash. This usually goes for beer, smokes and Foxwoods.

BTW when my wife informed me that we qualified for food stamps at one point I had my shit together by that weekend. But that comes from parents not the system.

I think they include women because you never know when a woman is going to get pregnant, and a woman that's been eating better and getting medical care prior to and during early pregnancy will have a healthier baby-costing the taxpayers less in the long run. Not saying I agree, and I HATE welfare as it is right now, but I think that's the gender-logic.

McQuaid LA: And while we're on the subject, why are so many of you so concerned about government aid to kids and families (TINY portion of the budget) while I never see anything about the Gazillions in government handouts to insanely-profitable industries like the pharmaceutical industry, petroleum or defense?

Amy Alkon: This is a single blog item, not a Tolstoy length work on my feelings about government handouts of all kinds. I blog about how I hate that stuff, too.

Me: Amy, I have NEVER seen any blog posts from you specifically criticizing handouts to agribusiness, petroleum, pharma - nor to mining, timber, or other interests. Would you point me to them?

California has been on a kick about "rebranding" everything government. 'cause the state's government doesn't have anything else to worry about.

I'm not surprised someone came up with CalFresh.

The California Department of Forestry was "rebranded" to CalFire.

The Department of Transportation has been CalTrans for a while now. And the pension fund is CalPERS. And the Department of Boating is CalBoating.

I'm waiting for the department that oversees wine to be "rebranded" CalVin.

"Spartee, the truly poor will get the food stamps despite the stigma. Then there are those who just want things cheap or free. Let's not encourage them to live off the public teat."

I disagree with you on this Amy. The people who food stamps are truly designed to help often don't apply because of the stigma of being on welfare. As a single mother I promised myself I'd never end up on welfare and I haven't. It was a matter of pride for me but I don't say that because I managed to avoid it that others may not have a need for it. There are situations that create a need for a person to apply. Maybe a better way to approach this problem would be to fight the abuses that go on in the welfare lines. Even then though, it is the kids who are innocent and the kids who get hurt. I don't have a solution for that and I'd really like to hear a reasonable way to fix it. The people who abuse don't give a crap about any stigma. A stigma only hurts the people who truly need it until they can get back on their feet.

On the bright side, it may take people awhile to figure out that CalFresh has anything to do with food handouts. If I'd just seen the name without being told what it was, I'd guess it was a new chain of organic produce markets. Or maybe a government agency that monitors how long markets keep unsold produce on the shelves.

For that matter why are they allowed to buy chips and soda and candy at all on food stamps?

Good question! It has always annoyed me to see people (some of them quite obese) buying junk food with food stamps. The stamps should be good for staples only. For example, in the WIC program (hey, another women-only handout, I just realized), the vouchers are only for milk, cheese and the like.

As far as re-brading Democratic State Sen. Rosa Franklin takes the cake. She feels that "at risk" is a self fulfilling prophecy so she wants the term to be "at hope". When Dan Savage says you went too far down the left wing path you went too far.

Reminds me of when Mass. renamed DMR to Department of Development Services. Millions of dollars was spent on the change. Millions that they did not have and could be spent on helping the developmentally delayed. Mind you that the most of the individuals in the programs are functionally incapable of grasping shame or taking offense.

Conan the Grammarian wrote:

> I'm waiting for the department that oversees wine to be "rebranded" CalVin.

I love it! A new word game! Can I play?

A state agency to reduce racial tensions: CalAmity

... to make sure that it's legal to operate an Italian restaurant in a certain location: CalZone

C'mon, Alkonites, join in!

"I gave you the link to "corporate welfare" on my blog. Clearly, you're only interested in being combative."

Actually, no, Amy, sometimes I'm interested in perspectives other than my own. But those links are both from a couple of years ago. The crusade you harp on the most these days that seems worth fighting is regarding over-regulation and Big Government, aka The Nanny State. Even regulations, though, don't do much if they're ignored - all these disputed foreclosures turn out to be based on shoddy paperwork and sidestepping existing laws. The answer to that is not more laws, it's better enforcement. Easy to say… enforcement costs money, and of course that means a bigger government. Ugh.

But with no enforcement or meaningful oversight, what happens then? I personally don't buy the argument that industries can be wholly trusted to regulate themselves. Of course, that could be a good topic for discussion.

Some of your posts are good topics. When Obamacare was up for debate there were some the best stuff on here was from other commenters sharing their personal real-life experiences.

Too often, though, you seem rather removed from the people or issues you carp at. It's one thing to sit in our comfy chairs screeching "Welfare - BAD! Me - GOOD!" That's easy pickin's. It's better to hear from people here saying, "Well I was a single mom and had to fight like hell to stay off the dole". That's why I read this blog.

The breaking news now is about WikiLeaks and the newest foreclosure mess. Why don't you start a discussion on them, or do a real expose on homelessness? Quality & substance of public education? Developers and our urban landscape? The cost of Alzheimer's? The value (or lack thereof) of teaching humanities? You are right to question liberal bastions such as feminism, but you've gone so far the other way that you've forgotten what those movements originally had to offer.

Even with topics more germane than yet-another-thoughtless-mom-at-Starbucks, there's often an attempt to find a single easy scapegoat. When the Gulf oil spill happened, I don't remember a peep out of you except to quickly lay the blame at Obama's doorstep. Some of the commenters did call you on it, but it would be nice if you at least broadened the discussion, perhaps asking whether environmental disasters are really that bad, or whether we should reduce our dependence on foreign oil (hey, fatties need to lose weight, yet here we are whining because we can't run the AC all the time). All good libertarian topics.

Long response, but there you have it.

Why don't you start a discussion on them, or do a real expose on homelessness? Quality & substance of public education? Developers and our urban landscape? The cost of Alzheimer's? The value (or lack thereof) of teaching humanities?

Why exactly is Amy required to post on subjects that happen to interest you? Go start a blog and post your own exposes.

But those links are both from a couple of years ago.

There were many more recent ones, but it seems you can't be bothered to...ohhhhh, ohhhhh, it's soooo hard...click on a link and see for yourself.

Oh yeah, and what kishke said.

I don't have a solution for that and I'd really like to hear a reasonable way to fix it. The people who abuse don't give a crap about any stigma.

Well, here's one idea. If you want to pick up a welfare check you have to be implanted with Norplant.

I have heard this idea criticized as advocating "involuntary sterilization," but that criticism didn't carry any weight with me. For one thing, it's voluntary. You don't have to ask for a welfare check. Nobody is making you. It's just that IF you want to pick up a welfare check, you need to have a Norplant implant. If you are asking the villagers for their money, it's reasonable that they attach some conditions to handing it over to you. If you don't like it, don't ask for their money.

It's also not sterilization, because once you have the Norplant removed, you can go right back to getting pregnant.

My gripe with this is that the same thing doesn't apply to men. But that's because I haven't figured out how, yet. They aren't the ones usually asking for the welfare check, and technology hasn't come up with a male equivalent to Norplant yet. (Vasectomies are permanent.)

But if your goal is to get people off the welfare rolls and cut back on fraud and abuse, this would be one way. Of course we'd have to come up with a way to detect fake Norplants.

"Why exactly is Amy required to post on subjects that happen to interest you? Go start a blog and post your own exposes."

Amy isn't "required" to do anything. This is reader feedback, which could be relevant if Amy is compensated in part by the number of people who visit and comment on her blog. I asked why she doesn't pick up on more stuff instead of sticking to the same portfolio of topics and answers. I don't read it every day - sometimes I visit and scan a week's worth of stuff and just say, Oh no not again. Usually now I just skip to the comments because the main post is something inflammatory.

Here's another topic I haven't seen on here, and that's anti-bullying laws. The papers are full of it these days. Is that the Nanny State or what? Given Amy's views on nanny states I would have expected her to come down hard and often and tell those suicidal self pitying teens to quit being such victims. Maybe this thread appeared when I wasn't visiting, but I haven't seen it yet, while other favorite topics appear over & over again. And yet I know it happened to her, as it probably has to others on here.

Please don't use the "But what about the poor little children"? argument. If you really wanted to give those kids a better life, you'd be for taking them away from those human trash heaps they were unlucky enough to land as parents and put them in loving, stable, two parent households.
I lived in a nice so nice part of a big city when I went to college, and I can't tell you the number of times I saw mothers purchase groceries with food stamps, and then buy two cases of beer and cigarettes with cash.
I can also tell you that I've seen dozens of kids who are on WIC and Medicaid be brought into the ER with signs of physical abuse. Or brought in with raging fever and infections because their stupid parents were too damn lazy to take them to a regular pediatrican before things got really bad.
So, please, PLEASE - don't act like food stamps will save children in poverty from the situation they're in. It'll take a hell of a lot more than that.

"California's all right / somebody check my brain..."

Well, here's one idea. If you want to pick up a welfare check you have to be implanted with Norplant.

This is the single most important thing we could do to reduce the welfare rolls, and I only wish state governments had the nerve to do it. Women could complain all they want, but I don't see too many single fathers on welfare. Go where the problem is.

Amy isn't "required" to do anything. This is reader feedback,

If you say so. But to me it sounds more like complaining and demanding than suggesting.

A couple things...
1. It seems far more the norm then the exception that people using WIC in front of me at the grocery store are buying a ton of other stuff, rung up separately of course, that's not cheap. I also note they almost universally leave the parking lot in newer looking cars, often pretty expensive SUVs.

2. My dad worked for AT&T for nearly 30 years (much of it back when it was "The phone company"). He has a story about working on the phone system in the CA welfare offices in the mid-80s (I think it was 80s). They had banks of people who's job entailed cold-calling welfare recipients in other states to convince them to move to CA. They would talk about the moving help offered, how much better the benefits would be here, etc. Granted, the system is supposed to be a lot different now (and it's hearsay from my dad) but if at all true, pretty telling.

"There were many more recent ones, but it seems you can't be bothered to...ohhhhh, ohhhhh, it's soooo hard...click on a link and see for yourself."

Considering how often people I know treat me as their human google proxy, because it's sooo hard to actually spend a couple seconds searching and checking results themselves... I'm not the least bit surprised.

"Well, here's one idea. If you want to pick up a welfare check you have to be implanted with Norplant."

There would be the argument that Norplant or other forms of bc like that aren't safe. Then there'd be the lawsuits from a woman who got cancer or some form of endiometrial disease blaming it on the forced bc. I happent to think that its disgusting the way some women have kids on welfare and continue to do so as though its a career choice, but again, its their children that are getting hurt. And I don't think those kids are better off with those mothers but the state can't even keep up with all of the kids that should be removed from abusive homes let alone the ones with shitty parents.

Good point, Kristen. But again you refer to it as "forced" birth control. No one is telling me I have to be on birth control to collect my paycheck, because I'm actually earning a paycheck based on the work I do. If you don't want to get Norplant, don't ask for other people's money!

The expectation that people carry their own weight has disappeared. It's all about people's right to have kids, regardless of who is paying for their kids' lunches.

One thing that sticks in my mind is that story from a few months back, about the woman with (I don't know, seven or eight?) a bunch of kids who was living in a hotel room in Florida, soon to be evicted. Her comment was that she was doing it all on her own, with no help from anyone, even though she had no job and was getting government assistance. Mind-boggling. It's like the people who think the government has its own money.

"(hey, another women-only handout, I just realized),"

Only in that men can't act as incubators for babies. You have to be pregnant or BFing to get WIC, or a child under 5. A single dad could get his kids WIC. After they turn 5, the free breakfast/lunch programs kick in.

If we're going to do food stamps, and sadly enough I don't think they're going anywhere, I agree it needs to be more like WIC. ONLY nutritious foods, and quite frankly only if you're under or over a certain age, or mentally or physically incapable of working.

"Amy, I have NEVER seen any blog posts from you specifically criticizing handouts to agribusiness, petroleum, pharma - nor to mining, timber, or other interests. Would you point me to them?"

Amy is required to cover all these subjects? Most bloggers blog about what interests them, or what caught their eye that particular week.

"Why don't you start a discussion on them, or do a real expose on homelessness? Quality & substance of public education? Developers and our urban landscape? The cost of Alzheimer's? The value (or lack thereof) of teaching humanities? You are right to question liberal bastions such as feminism, but you've gone so far the other way that you've forgotten what those movements originally had to offer."

Are you confusing Amy's blog with CNN by any chance?

What did they have to offer???

"Given Amy's views on nanny states I would have expected her to come down hard and often and tell those suicidal self pitying teens to quit being such victims."

Start your own blog and go to it, or if you have one, give us a link. I don't understand why you keep visiting a blog you don't like.

Am I the only one who expected Tucker to seem weirder? I listened to a lot of Velvet Underground in my younger years; they were about as out there as any rock band ever.

Somehow, I expected members of the band to be freakier; but Tucker comes across as totally lucid and reasonable.

P.S. Tucker was (is?) an underratedly excellent drummer. Nice subtle touch.

"If we're going to do food stamps, and sadly enough I don't think they're going anywhere, I agree it needs to be more like WIC. "

The problem is that money is fungible. If they can use WIC to buy food, then the money that they don't have to spend on food is money that they can use to buy smokes or booze or drugs or whatever. I don't know of a way to solve that problem.

I thought Norplant had been banned? Is it back on the market?

I like the IDEA of what you're saying, Pirate Jo. I'm not sure I would go the Norplant or other pharmaceutical route, though. People's bodies react to drugs in different ways. I also don't like the idea of the government pressuring people to take drugs.

Imagine the lawsuit if some poor person got the Norplant to get the welfare check and died of an etopic pregnancy or something.

Or, on a lesser level, had such severe migraines as a result that she couldn't work.

Pirate Jo, I agree with you in theory that it would not be forced, but the reality is that all of those woman should be on some form of birth control if they are in that situation. If they aren't already, then it shows a mindset that needs a lot more work than a Norplant can do. People like that will find ways to abuse the system no matter what safeguards are in place. And again, they would be the first to be filing lawsuits.

Norplant is but one option. There are IUDs and Depo, too. We will always have some people who can't tolerate contraception, and I'm not quite sure what to do about them, but "Some people will sue" and "People will abuse it anyway" aren't good reasons not to try it. We're willfully paralyzing ourselves.

Monica, again in theory, I agree, but in practice, not really. First, I had been on Depo years ago and had very bad side effects from it. It took a very long time for many of the things to clear up. How many people had side effects before a class action law suit? How many suits claiming its an infringement on their personal and biological rights? After costs from law suits and settlements, would the state be saving money? I don't think so. And on a personal level, because I was able to keep off of welfare does not mean there are people who don't genuinely need it. Those are the people who would get hurt, not the ones who find ways around the system. And again, the ones really getting hurt are the innocent kids born into that.

So, in order ot help the kids born into a situation that requires welfare we can not do anything to prevent women on welfare from having kids?

Well isnt that a fine little catch 22

I think the only way to help kids in the long run is to take a hit in the short term. The state would likely pay a fortune in legal fees defending against these suits initially, but in the end, if these women didn't get any money out of it, and there were no new kids being born into it, the situation would resolve itself.

There is a way to do this while protecting the state at least somewhat from frivolous lawsuits -- say, pre-welfare counseling outlining the risks of birth control, a doctor's evaluation that they know what they are doing and a waiver signed saying that they couldn't sue later. (That's no complete protection, of course, but it would help.) And if they refuse, no welfare. They have that option.

Mostly, I find myself angry that, as a society, we're so terrified of lawsuits that we're allowing ourselves to be mugged by welfare moms.

Mostly, I find myself angry that, as a society, we're so terrified of lawsuits that we're allowing ourselves to be mugged by welfare moms.

Word!

A society that allows this probably deserves what it gets, just for being such complete wimps.

Its not just the welfare moms. Where are the fathers of those kids? What standard are they being held to. Again, its the kids that are getting hurt, not the mothers or fathers that don't think their kids are worth more than a life on welfare. When I did an internship at Social Services, I was regularly hit on by men who were there for rent assistance, food vouchers, and medical. One applicant actually complained to me that he could never take me out on the money he was receiving. Forget that I would never consider dating him. The fact that he's pissed about the damage done to his dating life because he wasn't being given enough money and the fact that he wasn't working to get off welfare were more sickening to me than the thought that he was asking me out. I wondered how many kids he had running around that he wasn't supporting.

Well, Kristen, I think the same thing, and made a comment earlier to that effect. Schmucks like the one who hit on you might have fathered as many as ten or fifteen kids - so it seems like a Norplant (or equivalent) requirement of the mothers is coming down kind of heavy-handed on them.

Yet there is no technological equivalent for men - vasectomies are permanent, and you can't very well follow them around to make sure they are using condoms. I don't want to impose a vasectomy on a 22-year-old guy, because he might straighten himself out someday.

Because I often play devil's advocate against my own ideas, it also occurred to me that even with women, there'd have to be an age limit. It's just silly to make a 60-year-old woman on public assistance prove that she has permanent birth control in order to get her check.

If only there was a cure for stupid.

And the money we spend on welfare parents pales compared to corporate welfare and the bailouts of banks, etc., which I think shouldn't exist. The whole situation gripes the heck out of me, the way we subsidize bad decisions at every level.

Like Social Security - okay, we all agree there isn't enough money. But a couple of options floated around involve a) raising the income cap, and b) means-testing for benefits. Yes, this would reduce benefits and increase the taxes, and could make the whole mess solvent. Yet we'd be totally screwing the people who pay the most in! It's so unfair to apply the tax to everything they make, then deny them benefits later on because they make "too much money." That's just subsidizing a lifetime of being a slacker at the cost of those who worked hard. Talk about turning an old-age safety net into a blatant wealth transfer - I can't get behind that.

It's the nature of humans that we only succeed when we collaborate and work successfully in groups or communities. So many political issues being dealt with now really boil down to what we do with the deadbeats within our communities. This isn't just an American problem, countries all over the world are dealing with it. We have to boil away all the nonsense like Greece is dealing with, people who live just as long as we do but feel entitled to quit working at 57 and live off everyone else. And then the question becomes much more purposeful. What about the ones who work hard, for as long as they are able, and contribute, but have financial problems late in life, when they can't work anymore. It's hard to condemn someone who did all that, saved their money, and found it wasn't enough to cope with skyrocketing inflation because of their government's shitty policies.

There will be hell to pay around the world within the next five years. There are parasites of many nationalities and genders who have forgotten just where their blood is coming from.

And by the way, when I refer to parasites, I don't just mean poor people. There are those in the U.S. government and on Wall Street who should be in jail.

Unfortunately, Pirate Jo, we don't live in a society right now that places importance on personal responsibility. And as you said, its not just the poor, but watching what goes on with the welfare abuses is very frustrating.

Where are the fathers of those kids? What standard are they being held to.

Agreed, and I wish there were a way to apply the same standard to men, but there isn't. One option is to make welfare contingent on identifying the baby daddy and going after him for support, but that assumes the mother even knows and the father is gainfully employed.

As for SS, I'd like to see the age at which people can collect raised to 70.

Agreed, and I wish there were a way to apply the same standard to men, but there isn't. One option is to make welfare contingent on identifying the baby daddy and going after him for support, but that assumes the mother even knows and the father is gainfully employed.

I have no problem with this -- as long as the father is genetically identified (and there is no other dad else willing to stand up).

Remember there is a difference between being a father and a dad.

The problem is that the woman can say John Doe Smith is the father (who met her on a job for one day) is the father and he's on the hook for 18 years because he didn't get the letter to his old address. (Read many of Amy's stuff about that.)

I'm a teacher. I have to grade test papers in green or purple instead of red ink. It seems that red ink makes the students feel bad about their 40 scores on their tests.
Now they get a failing grade, but they don't feel bad about it.
Unwed mothers are now single parents. Food stamps are now EBT (electronic balance transfer)cards.
An "F" is in green instead of red ink. Do you stop for green lights now? Is it OK to have red ink in your checking account?
Put the school board on the short bus and send them all home!

The event's sponsors sure include a long list of government agency heads for something billed as a non-government charity event.

People are correct to be suspicious of Maria Shriver's for-women-only motives. She was the instigator for creating the state's California Museum for History, Women & the Arts.

Preferences for women is what feminists call "equality for women." Feminism - notice how its very name reeks of sexism.