Sunday, June 18, 2006

Happy Father's Day

Some things to note on Father's day:

No Fathers Need Apply
What if God, nature and thousands of year of human experience turn out to be wrong and marriage between one man and one woman is not, in fact, the single best way to bring children into the world and raise them up to be healthy adults?

This is what the American Psychological Association and the National Association of Social Workers are advocating.

And don't forget the public schools where "Heather has two mommies" is a greater literary work than Huckelberry Finn.

Welcome to the Single Mothers by Choice website!
A single mother by choice is a woman who decided to have or adopt a child, knowing she would be her child's sole parent, at least at the outset. Typically, we are career women in our thirties and forties. The ticking of our biological clocks has made us face the fact that we could no longer wait for marriage before starting our families.

I want to see the woman who wrote that put into a cage with Dr. Laura for 72 hours. These selfish women see a child as some sort of plaything to have rather than a responsibility.

Let me tell you something, I am so tired of "single mother" being some sort of status symobl or badge of honor. I can't tell you how many news articles I read where someone says "As a single mother..." as if it demonstrates anything other than your ability to have sex with someone you had no intention of marrying.

Many people somehow glorify the act of depriving a child of 1/2 their necessary parenting. They see it as almost an act of bravery when it is really an act of irresponsible selfishness.

Raising the minimum wage is a national battle
A single mother in Missouri making minimum wage earns $824 a month, before taxes. She has to pay rent, bills and buy food. Other unexpected expenses like car repair, medicine and money for child care aren’t factored in. And she is expected to pay for all of this while only earning $5.15 an hour.

“$5.15 doesn’t even come close to supporting a family these days,” said Lara Granich, St. Louis Jobs with Justice director. “A minimum wage increase would help a lot of families out of poverty.”

Guess what, if that selfish mother (term I will now use in place of single mother) would get married and her husband made minimum wage then her family income just doubled! But the left would prefer to prop up selfish mothers to "help the family" rather than suggest mothers be married which would really help the family.

21 comments:

Bryan Saxton said...

Daniel,

I would think you of all people would be a strong supporter for forgiving people for their past sins. Also, not all single mothers were "knocked up" before marraige. What about the mothers whose husbands put them in abusive situations, forcing them to leave their marraiges? What about those mothers who have been raped outside of marraige? Do you know how hard it is to get married when you already have a child?

But even regarding those who had a child outside of marraige just because of consensual sex. Are we not to have compassion on those people? Are we not to support them?

Also, in regards to the "Single Mother by Choice" website, there are millions upon millions of unwanted children sitting in adoption agencies around the world. I think the environment they are placed in is much better than the one they come from.

Oh yeah, Happy Father's Day.

Crackpot said...

Preach on brother Daniel, though some would brand you a "woman hater" for injecting common sense into this argument. I get that all the time. What I consider pro-family, pro-children or pro-society somehow equates to misogyny inside the feminist brain. In my mind, single mother by choice = ignorance, selfishness and immaturity.

Anonymous said...

All a result of Vasectomizing the American Male!

Bob H. said...

Daniel, Happy Father's Day!
Please don't try to pidgeon hole this dilema into a single issue problem. While being a single mother is not a badge of honor, it is also not a sin. There are as many reasons for being a single mom as there are moms.
Agreed, the ideal situation for a child is a loving mother and father. Not single mothers. Not two mothers or two fathers. We need to focus our energy and resources toward this goal. However, this is not always possible so we need to support whatever will facilitate the best outcome for the children.

BEAR said...

bryan, be supportive of any behavior you wish. Invite them into your home. Pay their bills. Raise their children.....I will do the same, as my family sees fit, through my church. If you demand that my family must support foolish people who exercise poor decision making, who have no accountability or intention of changing their ways, be prepared for a horse laugh. You don't get to tell me what to do. Feel free to practice your utopian (that's socialist to you lefties out there) nonsense. If it weren't for liberal guilt (that's extortion to you lefties), there would be far fewer irresponsible and unaccountable freeloaders out there. It's not about forgiveness, bryan, it's about changing from freeloader to productive member of society. I hear no profound effort at gratitude or change from these folks (or you, for that matter). What I hear is a resounding chorus of MMMMMOOORRRE!!.....sheesh.

Bryan Saxton said...

Bear,

First of all, I'm not telling you what to do. You'll do as you see fit. Second, yes, it is about forgiveness. Third, I would call someone raising a child who is otherwise considered "unwanted" as a very productive member of society. Fourth, if you are calling supporting and forgiving a single mother socialist, then Christ was a socialist, because that is what he calls us to do (giving to those in need).

Bryan Saxton said...

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, Bear, and everyone else on the forums, have a great fathers day!

BEAR said...

Give away, bryan! Give away!

Daniel said...

I think that my main premise was stated very well by Bob h: the ideal situation for kids is a two parent household headed by a father and a mother. This is what we should hold up as an example and strive for as a society.

I'm not saying that kids won't turn out great in other situations, I'm not saying that parent(s) in other situations are necessarily bad, I'm saying that our society shouild hold up the two parent household as ideal and not glorify other situations.

I certainly don't begrudge widows, divorcees because of abuse, etc. I do think that if you are a male who gets someone pregnant then it is your duty to marry that person or you are not a man. Essentially, don't have sex with someone that you wouldn't be willing to marry. Or, gasp, don't have sex until you are married.

Regarding compassion for situations that are less than ideal: I do think that we as a civilized society need to support these children.

Do I think that we need to make sure that they have food? Yes, we can't let kids starve in America. Should we drug test if it is taxpayer money that the parents are getting? Yes, and negligent parents should lose their kids.

Do I think that the schools should deliver free lunches to parents during the summer? No. This is going way to far. When we absolve parents of any responsibility then they come to expect other people to care for their children.

Bryan Saxton said...

OK, I agree with that. I beleive the ideal situatin for a child should be a mother and a father. However, I do beleive that we, as the richest country in the history of the earth, should help mothers who are trying to support their children with essentials such as food and housing (only, though, as long as the mother is making a good effort to support the child. I would advocate the removal of the child when the mother is doing little or nothing to take care of the child).

Oh, and this is something I cannot claim to be capable of, nor do I expect anyone here capable of it, but in response to Bear's last comment, Christ said in order to be perfect we must give all we have away to those in need and follow him. So yes, give give give.

R Huse said...

You know, I have to agree with you that the single mom thing really is becoming a ridiculous badge of honor. For, whatever the circumstances, more often that not these people are saddling taxpayers with a burden. Heroines they are not.

I would, however, agree with those who say raising the minimum wage would help them a lot. If we tripled it then every single mom could buy their own house. Oh hey, wait a second; you know what would help even more? Having a skill set that would enable you to get other than a minimum wage job. Oh.... wait again, didn’t we already provide you with that opportunity? Its called school. Don’t we already either pay or subsidize all the way through college? Woops sorry, forget the whole minimum wage thing, my mistake.

Bryan Saxton said...

R Huse,

Are you aware that social inequality still exists?

Anonymous said...

Here! Here! Daniel!

I married a "single mother" who's child was eleven at the time we got married. That 11 year old boy didn't have a clue on how to be a boy. He was spoiled, cried at the drop of a hat, whined to get his way, and complained about every bit of work he was asked to do.

After being married to the woman for a year now, the boy is well mannered, ASKS for chores to do (he gets paid for extra work around the house), saves his money and pays for his own luxery items (video games, etc), he has toughened up quite a bit, plays sports regularly, and knows how to be a boy.

I didn't have to "tell" him any of this. All I did was teach him about how to act, what the "un-written" rules of being a boy are, and gave him guidance from male perspective when he asked for guidance.

Without me around, I'm certain that he would have gotten worse.

Daniel said...

Anon, you have done that child, and all of society a huge favor! You should be very proud of yourself for what you have done. Being a positive male role model is a great thing! Happy Father's Day to you!

R Huse said...

Social inequality? Yes, I am pretty well aware that it exists. However, a woman impregnated by social inequality is not within the sphere of my experience. Generally the task is accomplished by less abstract, if more viscous, means.

Lack of social equality does not grant license to burden others. To say that we cannot expect lower classes to control their breeding with the same restraint as others is quite condescending.

Bryan Saxton said...

R Huse,

Perhaps you need to take a course in social inequality. Lack of education can be attributed to mothers being forced to raise children in single parent homes. I'm sure you are aware that it is difficult to get a job without a high school degree or a GED. Children who go to schools that recevie low funding are much less likely to graduate than children who go to schools with significantly more funding. Also, children who go to these schools that receive little help from the government are more likely to have sex outside of marriage and are much less likely to use effective methods of birth control. (Personally, I am a strong advocate of abstinance until marriage.)

Government plays into this by cutting nationwide funding for education (which is odd, considering we've significantly raised our defense budget).

Christians are commanded by Christ in the Bible to help these people. Seriously, what do we love more, money, or the well being of another person? Share the love of Christ and spread his message through helping them.

To non beleivers, I would say be a humanitarian and give to them.

In response to "lack of social equality does not grant license to burden others," I would say that govenrments opression of the lower classes (Taxing less of the upper class' income more than the lower class'? Come on!) is the source of social inequality and is the reason why we are faced with most of this problem in the first place. I say help them, because our government sure will not.

your ex-friend said...

Daniel,

Your wife was "knocked up" before you both got married, so what.

R Huse said...

I don’t exactly know how a course in social inequality would help here. Really what is needed here is a course in logic. You are making the classic mistake of assuming causation due to correlation, thus setting up the false syllogism:

Some schools receive low funding.
Kids in low funded schools get pregnant more often.
Therefore:
Low funding of schools causes pregnancy

Obviously this is nonsense and a classic, if ineffective, debating ploy. It is also an extreme case of classism on your part. You simply cannot conceive of people controlling whether or not the get pregnant without government’s intervention. It is condescension at its worst.

As for the tax issue you site. I would suggest a simple visit to the US treasury web site. The idea that lower income people are shouldering the tax burden is a total fallacy. Government here hardly oppresses lower classes to the extent of making them pregnant. If a daughter of mine ever came home pregnant and upon being asked who the father was said:

“Daddy, I swear to God, it was the Government, that’s it, it was Government oppression that got me pregnant”

Id crack up and laugh at her. So would you.

Ric said...

To take a different tack on this article -
Minimum Wage is a not a good wage. It is minimum.
Get a promotion, do a good job and get a raise. Take your experience and go to another employer for more money.

What the socialists are calling for is a 'living' wage.

Economically, Oregon would want to have the other states raise their wages. As ours is what 50% higher than the federal minimum, it is not really competitive.

One of the excuses we hear over illegal aliens is that Americans are not willing to do certain jobs ... for the wage offered. Do you think raising the minimum will help or hurt that situation?

Anonymous said...

The minimum wage is a living wage. You can't buy a house, fancy cars, etc. but you can live. You might live in a one bedroom apartment, ride the bus, and eat ramen, but you can live. Two people on minimum wage is $30K a year: A fact the gimme gimme socialists don't want to hear.

Anonymous said...

I'm amazed at how uninformed the readers are of this web site. I am a "single mother by choice." I did not have my child via any kind of sex (much less irresponsible sex). I had my son via donor insemination. My son was planned from day 1. He was also born out of love as I very much wanted him.

I have two university degrees and I make more than the average household. I also have a job with decent hours which allows me to spend plenty of time with my son.

I am not a drain on society as I probably pay more taxes than most.

I would have liked to have been married, but nobody asked me! And, since I was approaching 40, I felt this was the only time in my reproductive window I had left.

While the lack of marriage offers might be due to a character flaw on my part, I could just as easily say the men I've come across have also been too picky. Why are men so inclined not to marry these days or marry for good?

More reading about single mothers by choice would reveal that we are not your typical single mothers and should not be confused with them either.