The Goddess writes: Unless there's widespread and outspoken stigma from black leaders for the 70 or more percent of black women who have children out of wedlock, the culture of that isn't going to change. Unfortunately, as Kay Hymowitz writes on City Journal about Children's Defense Fund Founder Marian Wright Edelman:

True. Unfortunately, Bill Cosby seems unwilling to stick his neck out again. So, we are left with...?

Jackson? Sharpton? Keyes? Others? Basically, instead of encouraging people to take some measure of responsibility and use some judgment, they would rather function as apologists and defend this sort of thing as the results of their oppression. When Obama had the unspeakable gall to suggest that black males need to be responsible for their kids, Jesse Jackson took umbrage at Obama's "talking down to black folks." (He also threatened to emasculate Obama, but the more important is the fact that Jackson views a call to take personal responsibility as a condescension.)

And in a way, I can't blame them. It's a great gig...if you're not enamored of self-respect. You can enjoy a monsoon of popular support because your indignation translates into their free money.

Affirmative action has cultivated a victim mindset that feels entitled and owed compensation for real and perceived wrongs...actually, some of these wrongs are worse than perceived. Some actually seem willing to manufacture their injury in need of redress.

Somewhat unrelated, but I found this video on youtube, recording an incident that you may have seen in the news. Although the incident occurred and the video posted three years ago, this video is still receiving comments like it happened yesterday. It shows a Ft. Pierce Policeman attempting to handcuff a 15-year-old black girl, Shelwanda Riley...(that name...so typical...) who was out past curfew and probably carrying stolen property.

She resists him the entire time, kicks and even bites him. And she eventually gets a face full of pepper spray for it. (There was also some indignation over the fact that he punched her. Her punched her lightly out of reflex as she was biting him. If she bit me, I'd have punched her too.) This was an "abuse-of-power.org" video. I commented that I see no abuse of power. Shelwanda was entirely in the wrong and the cop acted with incredible patience, restraint and professionalism.

Quelle surprise. I was called a racist. Who didn't see that coming? Interested parties can see the video for themselves. And you might also enjoy some of the comments under video as well.

*sigh*
I was, when I was 17, one of the girls who desperately sought attention, and believed that he reallyreally loved me, and when I got pregnant, and the jerkwad bolted, I woke up, grew up, and got my act together.
I finished High school. I got a job, went to night school, got a better job. Got my bachelors, got a better job. Lather rinse repeat. Along the way, I fought the jerkwad in court to make him pay child support.
The thing that this story reminded me of that I had completely forgotten tho, was, when I was in school at the local community college, there was a program I had looked into for single mothers that was supposed to help with childcare and other things. I got a call from one of their minions, asking me if I would consider doing an interview with one of the local talk shows about how their program "helped me get ahead". Okay, I'll bite, I asked her exactly what they had done that I hadn't already figured out for myself. I was already enrolled in the school, had a daycare and transportation, didn't want welfare or foodstamps or medicaid, and I certainly didn't want to become a "dependant" when my goal was to improve my situation, not look for handouts.
Strangely, I never heard back from her, and I wasn't interviewed for the show. I did watch it, and the women they chose were typical welfare cases, chosen to justify throwing money at the program, I suppose.....

Kat, it seems like if they put people like you on the show, their programs would actually get more support. I'd rather help people who are doing something to help themselves, and not just looking for a handout.

A huge part of DC's problem is the dysfunctional schools. The previous mayor appointed a school head who was actually doing something about the problem; she is now gone. Attacking her was one of the centerpieces of the current mayor's campaign.

Thanks, Pirate Jo, I got the distinct impression from the woman I was talking to all those years ago that I did not fit her "template" of what a single mother was supposed to act like, ie, helpless, needy, asking for everything on a silver platter. When she asked me what my goals were, and I told her that I was working towards my bachelors in Comp Sci ( I was going to the local CC at the time, as I said) she acted shocked, stuttering and stammering about how much time and effort it takes to get a 4 year degree, and who was going to raise my daughter all that time? Why didn't I just wait til she was 6 and in school herself, and go to school then? (The Mermaid was only 2 at the time) I told her that I wasn't getting paid well enough to sit on my ass and watch soap operas, so I wanted to get out there and run with the big boys. Well, not in those exact words, but you get the picture ;)
Besides, I would raise my daughter just fine being in school and working, people did it all the time with a bit of help from their family and friends.
So that's what I did, and she turned out just as neurotic, but loveable as I am :P

I know why liberal whites believe that it's natural for blacks to have children out of wedlock, but I can't figure out why other blacks buy into these assumptions. Because for whites, this belief is typically rooted in the assumption that blacks are developmentally inferior, or stunted. So 'of course' they can't be expected to have a normal family structure.

*chuckle*
rosa, you make the liberals sound positively...racist.

I think people just do whatever they learn from their parents.

Sometimes, but then I'm the exception that proves the rule 'cause if I had turned out like my parents I would have been fucked. There was a reason I was so desperate for attention when I was young. And one of the reasons I worked so very hard to be a good mom to my girls (daughter #2 came along 10 years after #1) is that I had such a very bad role model, and knew all the ways you could screw it up. I promised the Mermaid even before she was born that I would *never* be like my own mother, and for the most part, human weaknesses aside, I did pretty well. It took a great deal of work, sacrifice, and a lot of *omgwtfjustkillmenowohwaitit'snotthatbadnevermindIcandothis*, but I can truthfully say 27 years later I wouldn't take a chance to go back and warn my 17 yr old self not to get pregnant, because I can't imagine my life without my girls. I really do think, in a way, I am a better person for having to have had to grow up and be The Mom.

I posted this on somebody's Facebook page (I'm followed by all sorts of people I don't know because of my book and column).

Her quote:

I'd really like to see statistics from a non-partisan entity that supports the statement that abusers of the welfare system outnumber those who require help through unfortunate circumstances beyond their control.

My comment:

Such as the inability to keep from having sex with five different random drug dealers and producing six daddyless children by the age of 24, like one woman I wrote about?

My neighbors are two 40-something architects and have a hard time making ends meet for two children. As a 24-year-old woman who ruts like a bunny, sans birth control, and never mind having to bring up daddyless children in poverty because of it...how do you take six children to the dentist?

My ex-gf had her first child at 17 -- graduated HS and then went on to get her bachelors in business by 23 and is about to get her masters in education at 28.

She has 3 kids, a job, and taking college courses. She was married until 25 -- but the dad might as well not been there. The kids are great.

The other thing she has is a Mom and Dad willing to help out. A crowd of friends that support and encourage her. Even as an ex -- I still am her friend and want her to succeed. She has used government to get her over a hump, once.

The problem is that the system is so easy to game that you can always be on the hump. There is no personal responsibility tied to the social services programs, in general. There are some pilot programs that do tie the support to the your results. If they tied the results to the support you would see something different.

If you said to the recipients -- you need your GED within a year. You have a diploma -- we'll provide childcare but you have to get a job. Oh, you can't find a job -- you have to show up every single day at the job center, that is also the child care center and the soup kitchen. Its also the phone answer center and support application center. Take a guess what you will be doing?

Take a guess what would happen?

Kat, I think you still did what you learned from your parents, but in your case it took the form of what NOT to do. It's the strength of the influence that I'm pointing out here, regardless of what form that takes.

Jim, I love those ideas!

It might work if the local government's idea of help was to give at least one copy of this book to every "problem" black family.

Jim, I like those ideas, too.

The very reason "we" decide to help such people is that we live and work in communities. It's human nature to want to take care of those in our communities. By making them be an active, working part of the community, they become part of the solution and not just the problem. As they are helped, they also help others. They may be holding out a hand to ask for assistance, but at the same time they hold out a hand to offer it.

I would very much like to learn more about these pilot programs.

And yes, sometimes I simply wish there was a way to put birth control in the water.

I have had my own independent thoughts about the "welfare" mom "problem" our nation has. It's always plagued me to some degree that the liberal left seems to have baited the inner city black community into a perpetual Democrat position with it... and on the flip side of the coin, the Republican camp gains an equal share of "welfare mom" haters that are perpetual Republicans.

These are two guaranteed voter blocks, purchased with a tax burden shouldered primarily by the middle class.

I have recently come to the conclusion that CEO welfare, that is, 6+ digit salaries for people whose job consists mostly of walking around and talking and screwing people "below" them out of an honest paycheck; is also a form of welfare. Something for nothing, if you will.

I find it more onerous that hard-hearted, suit wearing people are earning enough money in a year to support hundreds of "welfare moms" for doing little more than walking around and talking to people. 6,7 and even 8 figure paychecks for doing a "job" that doesn't require sweating, or getting their hands dirty or even having to wash their own clothes or care for themselves.

There is no self-made multimillionaire in the world. People only get that way by taking more than their share. These people produce the unemployed with their greed.

Raising 6 kids, is harder than anything any corporate CEO does.

Tank, there are most definitely self made multimillionaires that earned it and did not simply "take more then their share.". I work for a company that had founding engineers who risked everything, created a multinational company that employs thousands around the world today and they earned everything they have today.

Raising 6 kids, is harder than anything any corporate CEO does.

I don't know, walking around with a tractor tire dragging behind me, tied to my neck with baling twine, is probably pretty hard. This would be why I don't do it, dumbshit.

The vast majority of people do not have the resources to have six kids. Therefore, the vast majority of people should not HAVE six kids. If people do it anyway, choosing to make their own lives, and the lives of their kids, and the lives of everyone else in the community who try to support them, hard, do you expect me to hand them a medal?

Are you suggesting there is virtue in poverty? There are dishonest crooks at both ends of the wealth and income spectrums. Stealing and lying are not proven ways to get rich, and plenty of people steal and lie but don't get rich anyway.

Kat, you should be proud of yourself for doing so well and for breaking bad patterns. It seems easier than it actually is. Unfortunately you're not the majority. Education is so important. I can relate so much to being that 17 year old who was desperate to be loved. Its how I ended up in an abusive marriage and three kids.

I don't know that a stigma is the answer. When you're in that low place, it feels pretty hopeless. Please notice that I didn't say reward the ones that go out and have five kids with five different men before they hit 24. Those girls don't care about a stigma. They've formed their own club already and a stigma just reinforces their already messed up perception that they are victims of society and now being discriminated against. I'd like to say its not the job of the schools, but obviously parents aren't doing their job in these cases because, well, because most likely they were a mom at 16 too. There has to be programs in these schools to educate these young girls and show them that there is more to life than becoming a mother young. Take a look at these neighborhoods that have the highest teen pregnancy rates and I guarantee that the youth outreach programs are very limited.

And I suppose Tank that you will tell them exactly what their share is, right? In the land of the tiny brained folk, you know, the one you reside in, wealth generation is not a zero sum game. Work hard, educate yourself, much ambition and some luck and you too could be wealthy. Well not you Tank, that's taking more than your fair share...

Well Amy if you actually show the kids a way to make it out of poverty and life in the "hood" then whay happens to the "education administrators"? It is in their best interest that there is a large and never ending supply of kids in that position.

Tank, that is one of the stupidist things I have ever read. Clearly, you don't have the slightest idea what the owner or CEO of a business actually does. And your pathetic attempt to equate conservatives with inner-city blacks who vote 97% Democrat demonstrates your partisan hackery. Ask John McCain how that "anti-welfare mom" vote worked out for him.

We're now on our fourth generation of welfare children, and if anything, the experience shows that Moynihan was an optimist. We've got maybe 15% percent of the population (adding together the inner-city welfare dependents, and the similarly-minded meth heads out in the sticks) that consistently votes itself money from the public treasury. Their percentage is high enough that, in the absence of overwhelming opposition by the rest of the electorate, their vote will always determine the winner in any election. And of course they will always vote for more socialism, since socialism promises them both checks and excuses for why they accept the checks. The Left has done a tremendous job of appealing to avarice, providing the psychological mumbo-jumbo to wipe away any sense of guilt over the avarice, and organizing the self-entitled to implement and sanction the avarice.

I'm guessing that Tank is the sort who will complain that professional athletes make waaaaaay too much money, and that s/he is underpaid and under appreciated.

I've encounter the type before. Usually the you're only going to be paid what someone thinks you're worth or I don't see you filling stadiums and getting national TV coverage ends that talk pretty quick.

These are two guaranteed voter blocks, purchased with a tax burden shouldered primarily by the middle class.

Ah, the benighted middle class. The National Taxpayer Union says otherwise: in 2008, the top 10% of taxpayers paid a whopping 69.94% of income taxes, while the bottom 50% paid a mere 2.7%.

Now, granted, the definiton of what constitutes the middle class is rather amphorphus.

I created one, and it's called WIT: What It Takes, and it's a program to demystify "making it" for inner-city kids, with a message about not getting pregnant or getting anyone pregnant until you are developed as a person and in your career (lest you raise children in poverty and stifle your growth).

This is a volunteer speaker program -- basically, people who were not born wealthy but are ordinary people from middle-class on down, and who have made something of their lives, go in and talk to the kids about how they did it -- how failure is not a bad thing, but to be expected, and how it can be a good teacher, etc.

Amy, I actually participated in this sort of thing for several years. I would go to inner city high schools and talk to the kids about what sort of classes to take to prepare them for college, what it was like being a computer programmer, why I chose programming in the first place, What it was like being a woman in a "man's field" (Heh, always loved when that one came up, I got to tell them about my 6th grade math teacher who basically refused to teach the girls in his class because we couldn't possibly *grasp* the concept of MATH) Mostly I would hammer home the message of personal responsibility, setting goals, not letting slip-ups discourage you because as human beings we are all works in progress. Learning from our mistakes is something we all do.

When I was pregnant with my second child, Squeaker, I went to a particularly bad school. I was standing at the back of a class when a boy decided he was going to get up, walk to the girl sitting in front of me, and start beating her. I backed out into the hallway, and eventually got locked in the stairwell. That was the last time I went out. I finally got discouraged. I didn't mind risking my own neck, but I had a kidling to protect.

I'm guessing that Tank is the sort who will complain that professional athletes make waaaaaay too much money, and that s/he is underpaid and under appreciated.

I think that athletes are way overpaid -- but I'm a geek that was never into sports. Besides if you compare the amount of money Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods will make to what Larry Ellison and Bill Gates have -- the geeks have already won. ;-)

I would very much like to learn more about these pilot programs.

The big one I was thinking about was the Housing First program. But for those that are already in the system -- creating a system of dependency with no responsibility is not the answer.

I knew a guy that was 4'10" and lived off SSI his whole life as being a midget. And thought he deserved it. Meanwhile I knew a lady with cerebral palsy that was going to college. She could have lived off the system but had enough self-respect to not want to.

Sorry for the downer, I'm a cranky old woman sometimes :P
I had many more positive experiences, it was just at the time I was preggers, and didn't want to risk it, and by the time I felt up to it again, my company had discontinued the program.

My favorite way to get the kids started talking was to bribe them with these little flashlites. The kind the bank gave out, the ones you have on your keychain right now, probably. I would give them out if the kids would ask *intelligent* questions about careers, class choices, fashions (Hey, if you don't dress well, you ain't getting hired!) and I'm sure I pissed off a lot of teachers for the rest of the day ad the kids had lazerpewpew battles with them, but it got them talking.

After they started, it was so much fun to see the lightbulbs going on as they realized that they didn't have to have a silver spoon, ivy-league school education to get a good job and get ahead. When I told them I started at the CCAC and transferred to get my 4 year, they all thought I was lying, til I started bringing my diploma with me. When they got rowdy, I wouldn't yell at them, I shut up. That made them curious, because they had never been *ignored* before. So they would ask another question, and we would continue. It was a rewarding experience, over all....

I created one, and it's called WIT: What It Takes, and it's a program to demystify "making it" for inner-city kids, with a message about not getting pregnant or getting anyone pregnant until you are developed as a person and in your career (lest you raise children in poverty and stifle your growth).

I know you do that and I think its really great. Unfortunately there's only one of you and many communities that need that and more. I hate to put it on the schools and the teachers but unfortunately they have the most access and contact with students and would be the ones in a position to intervene early on through other programs that get youth involved in things outside of drugs and getting pregnant. I've taken kids into my home to live here as long as they need because things at home were bad and have a few friends who have done the same. But the problem is bigger than you or me or my few friends. These communities need outreach programs to save their youth. There are tax dollars that are cut each year that could fund youth centers, counseling agencies, sports programs, music programs, etc. It may sound basic, but those things give kids hope and a way out.

"I have recently come to the conclusion that CEO welfare, that is, 6+ digit salaries for people whose job consists mostly of walking around and talking and screwing people "below" them out of an honest paycheck; is also a form of welfare."

Oh, gee. Again...

Dude, the income of a CEO is set by the Board of Directors of a corporation, incorporated by the laws of the state in which it was established.

Now, if you want them to break the law or cripple the company by failing to post competitive salaries...

...you first. I think you make too much. You spend too much time whining, think your day is over at 5 PM won't do what is necessary, and you simply won't work more than 40 hours a week.

Lazy bum.

By the way, some modest companies get into 7 figures for their leaders. You can do a better job? Then go take theirs. It's a competition - which you, apparently, are losing.

Meanwhile, no serious money is made as an hourly wage. You might want to print that out and keep it where you can see it.

> McLanahan analyzed whatever numbers she
> could find, and discovered--lo and behold--
> that children in single-parent homes were
> not doing as well as children
> from two-parent homes

Wording too precious by half. Did she actually find that children need fathers? It's hard to imagine that the social science would tell her anything different.

Amy, this is fraudulent. You're too eager to believe that your truths are real, and just happen to be unproven. It's the quintessence of bad science. And WORSE journalism: Writing your lead on the way to the scene.

As if all the black men in America's prisons just needed another MOTHER in the house, another FEMININE PERSONALITY, to be made whole.

My boss, when she hired me, said I would have 40 hours and no weekend work on salary. I looked at her with a jaundiced eye, but gave her the benefit of the doubt.

I now do a 50+ hour week and check in on the weekends. She appreciates me. I make only a little less than her as I understand it.

The thing is -- I'm willing to step up to the plate and work my ass off.

I see others that whine about how much they make. They were also changed from salary to hourly pay. I wonder why? ;-)

Lessee, I wonder who would fare better. A child that has 2 highly motivated, involved adults working hard to provide a good home, stable environment, food, clothing, shelter, and role models, or a child who watches mom work her way through a series of "uncles" that beat her, sit around in their boxers, and drink heavily.
Exaggerations to make a point, but you get my drift, I had to work twice as hard to provide what 2 parents have their hands full doing well. No way in hell is someone on the public dole, laying around doing nothing, expecting everything to be handed to them setting a good example for their kids, so why should I believe they are good parents in other ways? And if you want to whine about how *hard* it is, talk to the hand, I've been there, done that, got the scars to prove it.

I find Amy's comments wrought with smug assumptions and stereotypes. While reading, I was embarrassed for Amy and felt that I should turn away. The article appears to be more biased than factual reporting. I'm overwhelmed by the number of people who consider themselves intelligent who are willing to "jump on the band wagon".

It seems that Amy must have been short on compelling ideas and simply used the Black Family story as an "scapegoat topic".

Tsk. Tsk.

This is not interesting. This type of article is old and tired.

The Goddess Writes: Crid, the nuclear family is a recent invention in human history, first of all, and second, research shows that children of INTACT families, including children of gay parents,...

You just had to get him started again, didn't you?

Cousin Dave: Ask John McCain how that "anti-welfare mom" vote worked out for him.

That was actually one of the reasons I voted for him. I'm reminded of the time that Jesse Ventura was asked by a welfare mother about their checks. Jesse made the commonsense (and hazardous to one's political career) that went something along the lines of, "The government did not father your child and it is not the government's responsibility to pay for your bad decisions."

The Goddess Writes: Desiree, when somebody comes here and posts a slew of remarks about how I'm smug and have nothing to say, but doesn't support their assertion, it's usually because my assertions were correct, but they really prefer I hadn't made them -- usually because they conflict with PC thinking or approved ways things should be said.

How true. It reminds me a little of someone I interact with on an AOL message board.

He doesn't care what I have to say, you see. You know this? Because he tells me. He creates entire posts that are lengthy by his standards to tell me he doesn't care what I have to say. He even occasionally creates a whole thread, just for the purpose of telling me he doesn't care what I have to say.

So, I just reply to him and thank him for his exhaustive and thorough efforts in assuring me that he doesn't care what I have to say. And in light of his numerous posts created to remind me, I will do my best never to forget this.

The Goddess writes: My favorite, Patrick, are the people who leave a comment that they will NEVER COME BACK HERE AGAIN! If that's actually the case, they don't make an announcement. The ones who do make an announcement ALWAYS, ALWAYS come back! I just wait for it after they say they're through...wonder how long it'll take before they return.

Oh, yes, we get those, too! But perhaps for different reasons. These are the ones who claim they're no longer interested, that they've risen above all the pettiness and bickering, and pointless arguing...and off they go, to enjoy their ascension into higher consciousness now that they're so "above it all"...only to return, sometimes just a couple of days later.

"I find Amy's comments wrought with smug assumptions and stereotypes"

Well let's have it. We're always up for a good debate here, so please let us know where the smug assumptions and stereotypes were in place of factual reporting. And while you're at it, I'd like to know which parts made you want to turn away. The parts that make me want to turn away have more to do with these poor kids growing up in these circumstances than the fact that Amy's blogging about them. I guess though denial is always a good friend to some.

While reading, I was embarrassed for Amy and felt that I should turn away.
Posted by: Desiree

So if you turned away then how would you know what the post was about? Or are you one of thse people who can even be bothered to hold yourself to your own stanndards of douchebagery?

"Desiree" is a drive-by robo-troll. This is an attempt to repeat the "six kids" thread nonsense. I guess they got bored with defending Julian Assmange.

I was, when I was 17, one of the girls who desperately sought attention, and believed that he reallyreally loved me, and when I got pregnant, and the jerkwad bolted, I woke up, grew up, and got my act together.

Along the way, I fought the jerkwad in court to make him pay child support.

Apparently "jerkwad" was smart enough to realize that becoming responsible for a child at 17 without any: education, training, job, serious source of income, or a stable relationship is a bad idea.

You had a chance to choose to do the sensible thing and get an abortion, or; put your child up for adoption so it could be raised in a stable home by a loving couple. Instead you decided to take an extremely risky gamble with your life, and the life of your child. That's fine, but; you shouldn't be able to drag "jerkwad" down with you.

Especially when he didn't use fraud to put you in your position. Unlike some men who's girlfriends flush their birth control pills down the toilet, and then lie about it; you could physically see whether your boyfriend was wearing a condom.

Your body, your choice, your responsibility.

By the way seeking child support from an unwilling partner is far worse then being on welfare. After all taxpayers don't have to worry about men with guns coming to their house, then; throwing them in the slammer if they fall on hard times and are unable to pay a certain level of income arbitrarily decided upon by a government bureaucrat.

I don't know, walking around with a tractor tire dragging behind me, tied to my neck with baling twine, is probably pretty hard. This would be why I don't do it, dumbshit.

The vast majority of people do not have the resources to have six kids. Therefore, the vast majority of people should not HAVE six kids. If people do it anyway, choosing to make their own lives, and the lives of their kids, and the lives of everyone else in the community who try to support them, hard, do you expect me to hand them a medal?

Amy's thoughts on the subject pretty much mirror my own, if you replace the words "six kids" with "children". The magic number doesn't have to be six. If your income level is low enough, being responsible for just one child is a bad idea. If you want to fuck up your own life then that's fine. But just because you have the right to make bad decisions, doesn't mean that you should be able to drag anyone else down with you. That includes "jerkwad".

It takes two to make a child, Mike. Jerkwad played, and jerkwad pays.

We don't leave children to starve, so somebody pays. I'd prefer it were the players.

Oh Mike, give it a rest (and learn to use colons and semicolons correctly or don't use them). You wrote:

By the way seeking child support from an unwilling partner is far worse then being on welfare.

Seriously? You stand by that idiotic blanket statement? At which point does it kick in then? Is it just before the kid is born? When the parents aren't married? When they get divorced after 10 years because dad found someone else and doesn't want to be saddled with his children anymore? Or is it when the man gets left so he makes the kids suffer to punish his ex? Or is it just when dad (or mom) doesn't feel like ponying up?

But I agree with Amy about personal responsibility and with you that there are other, better choices at 17 -- though she didn't say her baby daddy was also a teenager. In fact, they're often men in their 20s preying downward.

"Apparently "jerkwad" was smart enough to realize that becoming responsible for a child at 17 without any: education, training, job, serious source of income, or a stable relationship is a bad idea."

Yes, Mike. Jerkwad showed the highest form of intelligence by taking off without a care what would happen to the sperm he left behind. He didn't want it so why stick around or pay? If Jerkwad really believes that having a kid at 17 is a bad idea, he should keep it in his pants or use protection. Once he makes the choice to sleep with someone he is just as responsible for any life created.

"By the way seeking child support from an unwilling partner is far worse then being on welfare. After all taxpayers don't have to worry about men with guns coming to their house, then; throwing them in the slammer if they fall on hard times and are unable to pay a certain level of income arbitrarily decided upon by a government bureaucrat."

You really are quite the charmer. I'm starting to wonder how many kids you've run out on and thinking maybe they are better off for it.

"It takes two to make a child, Mike. Jerkwad played, and jerkwad pays."

This is a statement of fact, not an argument. I'm pretty sure everyone knows that it takes two people to make a child, and that if a man is the legal father of a child he has to pay child support.

"We don't leave children to starve, so somebody pays."

YOU may be determined not to let children starve. But you don't have a legitimate claim to anyone elses money. By the way child support isn't only about 'not letting children stave'. If that were the case famous singers and comedians wouldn't be forking over $200,000 in monthly child support payments.

"Oh Mike, give it a rest (and learn to use colons and semicolons correctly or don't use them)."

If, you, don't, like, my, punctuation, feel, free, not, to, read, my, posts.

Seriously? You stand by that idiotic blanket statement? At which point does it kick in then?

1.) Yes seriously.

2.) Men should have the same amount of time to unilaterally surrender their parental rights as women do. That is slightly more then 9 months after being informed of the pregnancy. I say 9 months because a woman can abandon her parental rights by returning a infant to the hospital.

I believe in equality under the law, as guaranteed in the 14th amendment, regardless of biological differences. Laws that discriminate against someone because they have different downstairs plumbing, are just as evil as laws that discriminate against someone because their skin color.

"If Jerkwad really believes that having a kid at 17 is a bad idea, he should keep it in his pants or use protection."

The same could be said to 40% of the female population that have had abortions. Not to mention all of the women who's newborns are adopted, or; legally abandoned at a firestation/hospital by their mothers.

Do women not have the choice to "keep it in their pants"? Can women not use protection?

Actually according to planned parenthood women have 22 different non-permanent options when it comes to controlling their fertility, as opposed to men who have only one. If anything that gives more weight to the argument of legal choice for men, not less.

I find it strange how some people believe in the misandrous notion of only holding men responsible for their reproductive choices.

"Once he makes the choice to sleep with someone he is just as responsible for any life created."

No shit Sherlock. There is a difference about what the law should be and what the law actually is.

"You really are quite the charmer. I'm starting to wonder how many kids you've run out on and thinking maybe they are better off for it.

Actually none, but that's completely irrelevant. Every idea should be evaluated on the basis of its own merits.

By the way don't lecture me about 'running out on kids'. Especially when in all 50 states women can legally abandon her new born by returning it to the hospital, and can do so with less hassle then someone who decides to return a dvd to best buy.

Mike you have some good ideas, where you went wrong was blaming a good parent for following the law and behaving ethically.

Women may have more options as far as birth control goes, but the only option that is 100% for either sex is abstinence. I acknowledge that realistically people are going to screw but when they make the choice to screw it should be with the knowledge that a life may be created and that they are equally responsible for it. So spare me the crying that women have better birth control options. As I said before, if you don't like it then keep it in your pants and there'll be no problem and nobody showing up at your door forcing you to pay child support or go to jail.

"Mike you have some good ideas, where you went wrong was blaming a good parent for following the law and behaving ethically."

Yea but I only blamed her for going after the man and making him financially liable, when he made it absolutely clear that he didn't want the responsibility of being a parent before the child was born.

Certainly she behaved more ethically then most teenage single moms, who end up being welfare queens. But the truth of the matter is that she chose to become a mother. She could have had an abortion, put the child up for adoption, or taken advantage of abandonment laws to unilaterally surrender her parental responsibilities. She should have afforded the man in the situation the same choice by not making him financially liable for a child he clearly didn't want.

"I acknowledge that realistically people are going to screw but when they make the choice to screw it should be with the knowledge that a life may be created and that they are equally responsible for it."

They aren't held equally responsible for it. A woman can unilaterally surrender her parental responsibilities after a pregnancy has occurred, a man cannot.

"As I said before, if you don't like it then keep it in your pants and there'll be no problem..."

And as I said before why isn't 40% of the female population that have gotten abortions, or; the scores of women that have adopted or legally abandoned their newborns expected to just "keep it in their pants".

The 14th amendment of the Constitution is suppose to guarantee equal protection under the law. Separate legal treatment is by definition not equal. That was established a long time ago.

Apparently "jerkwad" was smart enough to realize that becoming responsible for a child at 17 without any: education, training, job, serious source of income, or a stable relationship is a bad idea.

You had a chance to choose to do the sensible thing and get an abortion, or; put your child up for adoption so it could be raised in a stable home by a loving couple. Instead you decided to take an extremely risky gamble with your life, and the life of your child. That's fine, but; you shouldn't be able to drag "jerkwad" down with you.
Oh, where do I start?
I was 17. He was 22. I was from lower income, abusive home, perfect prey for his upperclass, college educated, just wanted some booty bastard.
I met him when I was in a shelter for runaways. He was a counselor there. When I got pregnant, his father, the corporate lawyer, told me that if I came after him for child support they would have me thrown in jail for what ever trumped up charges they could, and I was young and stupid enough to believe him, so he skated at the time.
No, abortion was NOT an option, so don't even go there. I wasn't going to murder my child because I had made a mistake. I looked into an adoption, and couldn't go through with it. 'nuff said.
Shall I repeat that the jerkwad was from a rich family, had a college education, a good job, and could have used a condom? I was a teenaged, abused runaway that was in his care? Here, let me paint the picture for you. I grew up MORMON, ffs, I didn't even know what the pill was till I was 20. My mother had told my I could get preggers by sitting in a boys lap in my bathing suit. That was the extent of MY education til that slimy bastard came along.
So Mike, DIAF, ok?
You know who saved me? My Grandmother. She had pretty much not had anything to do with my family because my mother was such a psycho, but somehow she heard about me through the grapevine, and called me at the shelter. At first I didn't want to talk to her, I mean, why? Here's a woman that had basically written me off, right? I asked her why she hated me, when I didn't do anything to her, and she explained it wasn't me, it was my Mom, and we talked for hours. Turns out, I was a lot like her, we worked things out, so she sent my Aunt to pick me up. I had to work my ass off, after all Grandma had gotten married at 16, owned a hair salon and raised 8 kids, all while keeping a spotless house, she wasn't a slacker, so I had no wiggle room! But it was the very best time of my life, and I learned a lot.

Oh, and Mike? I never said he made it clear he didn't want to be a parent before she was born, he took me shopping for baby things, and to his parents cabin for a family get together, and *then* changed his mind. You really should get all the details first before making judgements.

"And as I said before why isn't 40% of the female population that have gotten abortions, or; the scores of women that have adopted or legally abandoned their newborns expected to just "keep it in their pants"."

Nobody is congratulating them for their choices. The bottom line though is that when a man screws a woman, he knows once those sperm are let loose that there's the possibility a kid can come from that. Nobody said its fair that his choice carries less weight, but life isn't always fair. I don't think that jerkwad's kid will sleep any better at night knowing that jerkwad is exercising his right to fair and equal treatment by abandoning his responsibility.

"I was 17. He was 22. I was from lower income, abusive home, perfect prey for his upperclass, college educated, just wanted some booty bastard."

I don't care. If it was legal it doesn't matter. You chose to sleep with him, he didn't rape you, so stop referring to yourself as prey. If you were the victim of rape, statutory or otherwise then that's a different matter.

"No, abortion was NOT an option, so don't even go there. I wasn't going to murder my child because I had made a mistake. I looked into an adoption, and couldn't go through with it."

Actually abortion was an option. So was adoption, and legal abandonment. They were options that you chose not to use. The operative word here is choice.

"Nobody is congratulating them for their choices."

Perhaps not. But the fact remains that those choices are still available to them. And almost half of the female population has decided to abandon their parental responsibilities at some point in their life. If that option is available to women, it should be available to men as well.

"Nobody said its fair that his choice carries less weight, but life isn't always fair.

Saying "life isn't fair" isn't a valid argument for legal discrimination. In fact its not an argument at all. It's a statement of fact.

I don't think that jerkwad's kid will sleep any better at night knowing that jerkwad is exercising his right to fair and equal treatment by abandoning his responsibility.

Either Jerkwads kid wouldn't exist, or jerkwad's kid wouldn't know the difference if; she did the right thing and got an abortion or adopted the kid into a stable and loving home that has an intact family upon birth. Instead she decided that its a good idea for a 17 year old runaway to raise a child.

Also what about all of the women who legally abandon their children at hospitals and fire stations? How well do you think a child in the foster care system who's mother abandoned him sleeps? Or is child abandonment only acceptable when women do it?

Also what about all of the women who legally abandon their children at hospitals and fire stations? How well do you think a child in the foster care system who's mother abandoned him sleeps? Or is child abandonment only acceptable when women do it?
I didn't abandon, or murder, or abuse, or do anything else repulsive to my child. To suggest that my taking responsibility for my actions is in any way equal to what those women do, and therefore justifies his abandonment of our daughter is douchbaggery at its finest.
I repeat, I took responsibility for my mistakes, learned from them and grew the hell up. I made a good life for my child, and expected him to contribute because it is his LEGAL responsibility to do so. She was his child too, I had not been promiscuous, I submitted to the dna test he demanded while stalling, followed him as he moved from state to state (not physically, just had to re-file each time, because each state has different child support laws and such) and finally, when she was 9 yrs old, he suddenly became "Father Knows Best" and demanded joint custody. Told him to go blow. She was totally and completely unaware of his existence at that point, because I had never said a word about him. I don't believe in smack-talking parents to their kids, even artards like him. Didn't tell her any lies like "he's dead" or "he joined the French Foreign Legion and became a can-can dancer", just that I would explain it someday. No way was I giving him anything but supervised visits at that point.
She met him, once, didn't like him, and told him so. Bright girl.

Yep, gots to love those upstanding mormons.

Mike, 22-17 = 5

5yr age difference + under 18yr old girl = statutory rape(definition of statutory rape is a consentual sexual encounter wherein one party is legally incapable of giving consent)

Add to that runaway tenn and a shelter counciler? And you're still giving her shit?

Sorry mike, I happen to agree that men should have as much a right as women to dump their legal responibilties and privliges, but that isnt the way the law works at the moment; but given the situation as laid out by kat, you dont really have a leg to stand on in your argument with her

> the nuclear family is a recent invention
> in human history

A rabid, foaming non-sequitur: [A] Who said it wasn't, [B] what's the relevance to this issue, and [C] so what? Germ theory's a "recent invention"... But don't try to live without it.

> research shows that children of INTACT

Don't go swingin' your cap letters around me, Missy...

> families, including children of gay parents

You're so EAGER to say that. You're HORNY to say that. As if their were huge volumes of detailed, broad studies on the shelf, as if they addressed this topic squarely, as if they could all be reduced to the high-school science-level maxims you like to cite, and as if you'd already stumbled upon them before you made up your mind about what they should say. Again, you wrote the headline before you arrived at the story. You're so pathetically NEEDFUL that it be true.

But no... Which is why you dodged my comment... You can't seriously contend that the what will protect young American men in urban poverty from lives of lawlessness is having ANOTHER feminine authority in the home... Or two masculine ones, for that matter.

When you post on this topic, you simply don't mean it. Well, there's a long and tragic tradition of expansion-minded "civil rights" zombies who free-ride on the righteous indignation of American blacks: Middle-class white women, gays, the retarded, the disabled... It goes on an on. With these posts, "borrowing" the real suffering of a distinct American population, you're making precisely the same error as the self-satisfied lefties and bogo-feminists whose smug presumption you pretend to decry....

It's a sixth-grader's girly daydream of a fantasyland with neither sacrifice nor unpleasant truth, where "love" is just an ethereal, free-floating, gooey miasma of niceness instead of a thoughtful, disciplined response to unfortunate human nature.

Don't pretend to be concerned about marriage just because it flatters you... You've said in as many words that you're not.

Crid, the idea that only males can exhibit masculine qualities and females can exhibit feminine qualities is so...1940s. You should get more in touch with your feminine side.