... does it seem to you like single mothers who choose to have multiple children out of wedlock seem to get everything handed to them on a silver platter? One example I can give would be the Head Start programs. Once a month, I have to call these Head Start parents who are on the Policy Council and basically kiss their ass. They have it made and they don't realize it. They have free transportation, free child care, and at the Policy Council meeting they get a free meal (for example: shrimp alfredo, salad, corn on the cob, watermelon, and cookies was the most recent meal, and the kitchen takes it away so fast that agency staff cannot have any leftovers). These parents act like they are so entitled to everything. I guess being a professional uterus has its benefits, but these people absolutely disgust me.
It's not just you. These women need OJT, not welfare.
(06-16-2010 02:55 PM)eslbee Wrote: [ -> ]It's not just you. These women need OJT, not welfare.
Maybe that's true, but I think a reliable birth control method would be a good start. After all, there are several methods that are over 99% effective! I realize there are extenuating circumstances in which it is not the woman's fault, i.e., the 1% failure cases, but most of the time those women that I term "professional uteruses" choose not to even use contraception. Not smart.
CB, I meant for those who already have kids. If it were up to me, a lot of people would be sterilized, just like I am!
They definitely recieve tons of services, but I guess its because its for the kid's welfare. And I think that's why they get so sanctimonous about it: How dare anyone (except them) deprive the children of anything? I understand that the services are meant to help prevent the children from having problems in the future, but so many parents out there really need to get their act together and take responsilblity for the kids they created.
Due to multiple disabilities, I occasionally need help from various social agencies or charities.
There has been times where I have been denied any services by some generic charities ( ie non-parent/child charities) because I have not had kids.
In frustration, I have recently been responding with something like:
" Let me get this straight - I have more than TEN chronic disabilities that I have in no way ever caused or exasperated and get denied any help because I did not squat out kids that I could never care for or pay for."
(06-16-2010 11:12 PM)cassia Wrote: [ -> ]Due to multiple disabilities, I occasionally need help from various social agencies or charities.
There has been times where I have been denied any services by some generic charities ( ie non-parent/child charities) because I have not had kids.
In frustration, I have recently been responding with something like:
" Let me get this straight - I have more than TEN chronic disabilities that I have in no way ever caused or exasperated and get denied any help because I did not squat out kids that I could never care for or pay for."
I've been denied every kind of assistance out there because I don't have kids. It was a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE blow to my ego to have to ask for help - I wasn't raised that way and was taught to work. But I didn't choose to get sick, and hell, I've paid into the system for half my life and don't get thousands back in taxes for child-related deductions and credits, so it's not evil for me to want some of that back, right?
But because I haven't shot a small human out of my crotch, I'm not worth helping. It pisses me off.
As for welfare, this is a debate I have fairly often on other forums, and I'm a bit stuck because I believe that the kids deserve help - they didn't ask to be born to irresponsible uterine donors*. But how do you help the kids without rewarding the parents for not working? The only way I can think of is to remove them from their parents and put them into a household that can adequately care for them, but that opens up a whole new mess of problems (namely the potential for abuse and discrimination against families who may be awesome parents but just don't have a lot of money, but still won't ask for handouts, like my parents were). I guess there's no easy answer for this one.
*As with all my rants on this topic, I'm not referring to people who are physically unable to work - just those who can but don't want to.
Without the Head Start program you'd have as many kids are enrolled growing up with zero skills by age 5. That program actually saves us money in the long run by giving kids who probably don't even have one single book in their house access to things like books, basic learning like right/left, up/down - things their parents will never teach them. Head Start is about KIDS not about parents.
How about the issue of causation with such sad sad excuses for breeders that programs like Head Start (basics for kids) are even needed?
What about causation? Yes, of course that needs to be addressed, but those kids exist. Should we deny them any kind of future because they had the misfortune to be born in a certain class? Just because we don't want or like kids doesn't mean we should consign whole groups of them to a life of not learning to read, going to jail (which we'll end up paying for in the long run) and poverty.
This country is sick. Some kids get classical music training at age 2 and baby yoga and Einstein classes. Other kids get cigarettes put out on their arms, a TV on 24-7 and no parenting. Head Start is a VERY SMALL step to help those latter kids get on the same playing field as the others. It doesn't really even come close - those kids aren't even in the same ballpark yet and they won't be until there's real education reform. Pick up any book by Jonathan Kozol, I really recommend it.
I believe the issue at hand is NOT whether kids should get some benefits, but ** are the childfree getting discriminated against? **
(06-18-2010 11:16 AM)cassia Wrote: [ -> ]I believe the issue at hand is NOT whether kids should get some benefits, but ** are the childfree getting discriminated against? **
That was the issue, but we wandered.
However, I do think the childfree get a raw deal, and really, they should get a fucking medal for not adding to the problem.
(06-18-2010 11:16 AM)cassia Wrote: [ -> ]I believe the issue at hand is NOT whether kids should get some benefits, but ** are the childfree getting discriminated against? **
We are absolutely discriminated against! I want to smack all those stupid breeders who whine about how "anti-family" the U.S. is. Are we living in the same country??? This country is ferociously pro-family! I don't know how they can be so blind to the countless privileges given to them that are denied to childfree people. It makes me sick.
ITA-just because you didn't have kids is not a reason to deny someone who legitamitely needs help some basics like food, shelter, or medical care. I sometimes (somewhat) jokingly refer to it as the "puppy effect" as everyone wants to help the little kiddies, and politicians love how introducing programs or expanding them for kids helps win them votes, but there needs to be services for adults who are also in need.
(06-18-2010 07:25 PM)Nadleeh Wrote: [ -> ]We are absolutely discriminated against! I want to smack all those stupid breeders who whine about how "anti-family" the U.S. is. Are we living in the same country??? This country is ferociously pro-family! I don't know how they can be so blind to the countless privileges given to them that are denied to childfree people. It makes me sick.
ITA also. It's not just benefits and priveleges. Everything must now be kiddy friendly. How many venues are for adults only? Not many, if any. Las Vegas tried the kiddy friendly route. Why would people insist on making the gambling mecca of the world child friendly? It's summer, so it's the time of year for festivals. There are the occasional beer or wine festivals, although the wine festivals are usually in the fall. They used to be restricted to adults of legal drinking age. But in the last few years, they are now kiddy friendly. Seeing kiddy clowns and kiddy activities at a beer or wine festival just isn't right. Most of the summer festivals have beer tents that used to be restricted to people of legal drinking age, but now anybody can go in the beer tent area. I don't understand the mentality of people going crazy if kids are restricted from certain areas that aren't appropriate for kids.
In terms of Headstart and other early childhood literacy programs, my state has a program called SmartStart (
http://www.smartstartok.org/) that encourages parents to take an active role in raising their children. They offer lots of programs for the children, but the parents are required to participate in regular parenting classes. The goal is to get the parents involved in their child's education and help the children gain the skills that they will need for starting school.
It would be nice if more of the social welfare programs encouraged participants to be actively involved in their programs. I think it would give people a sense of ownership and purpose, and perhaps help them to get more out of the programs.
(06-25-2010 01:42 AM)kristin9924 Wrote: [ -> ]In terms of Headstart and other early childhood literacy programs, my state has a program called SmartStart that encourages parents to take an active role in raising their children.
Say what? You mean parents are suppose to be involved in raising their own kids? What a revolutionary concept. I wonder if it will ever catch on.
(06-25-2010 10:18 PM)Dog Holliday Wrote: [ -> ] (06-25-2010 01:42 AM)kristin9924 Wrote: [ -> ]In terms of Headstart and other early childhood literacy programs, my state has a program called SmartStart that encourages parents to take an active role in raising their children.
Say what? You mean parents are suppose to be involved in raising their own kids? What a revolutionary concept. I wonder if it will ever catch on.
LMAO Good one Dog Holliday..
But ITA with what CNK said.. "Head Start" IS and should be for the kids to LEARN. Sadly, the parents use it for their own entitiled self interests.
I give up on this world.. Just give me a dog, and enough is said
(06-20-2010 11:25 AM)Dog Holliday Wrote: [ -> ] (06-18-2010 07:25 PM)Nadleeh Wrote: [ -> ]We are absolutely discriminated against! I want to smack all those stupid breeders who whine about how "anti-family" the U.S. is. Are we living in the same country??? This country is ferociously pro-family! I don't know how they can be so blind to the countless privileges given to them that are denied to childfree people. It makes me sick.
ITA also. It's not just benefits and priveleges. Everything must now be kiddy friendly. How many venues are for adults only? Not many, if any. Las Vegas tried the kiddy friendly route. Why would people insist on making the gambling mecca of the world child friendly? It's summer, so it's the time of year for festivals. There are the occasional beer or wine festivals, although the wine festivals are usually in the fall. They used to be restricted to adults of legal drinking age. But in the last few years, they are now kiddy friendly. Seeing kiddy clowns and kiddy activities at a beer or wine festival just isn't right. Most of the summer festivals have beer tents that used to be restricted to people of legal drinking age, but now anybody can go in the beer tent area. I don't understand the mentality of people going crazy if kids are restricted from certain areas that aren't appropriate for kids.
Yes! And then they complain about restaurants that insist on no children (or that put signs up saying that they must act like civilized human beings). When we say that we want a place where we can go to get away from kids, they always say, "Why don't you go to bars/strip clubs/whatever?" BECAUSE YOU INSIST ON BRINGING YOUR KIDS TO EVERY.FUCKING.PLACE.THERE.IS AND THERE AREN'T ANY CF PLACES ANYMORE!!!
My peeve is that the childed will say go to a bar or a strip club if I want to be in an adult place. What if I don't care for those things? I'd like to be able to go to a nice sit down restaurant and not have kids running around shrieking. I'd like to go to a movie at night without kids talking. I'd like to be able to go to a coffee shop without babies crying. Why is it that basic courtesy doesn't exist anymore.