Adviser for Americans arrested in Haiti suspected of Child Trafficking in El Salvador. So am I supposed to believe they just happened to find someone connected to human trafficking and hired him? Don’t answer that. In other “I hate the world” news this shit right here? Prime example of what happens when groups get so focused on their pet interest that they throw all logic and common sense out the window. The reality is that abortions are not happening because Planned Parenthood exists. Long before Margaret Sanger was a notion in her mother’s eye women had ways to end a pregnancy. And they did so (and still do so) for a lot of reasons having nothing to do with race, though as with everything else racism does play a part in the underpinnings of some of those reasons.
First up, there’s the purely financial aspect of things. We live in a country that begrudges people a living wage and health insurance. For some reason these are viewed as things you have to earn, and if you don’t manage to secure them then it’s all your fault for not using those magical boostraps. Never mind pesky details like limited educational opportunities, a sagging job market, and the overall lack of boots or straps that plague much of our population. Attitudes toward public assistance are ugly and filled with all sort of ridiculous myths about recipients. Especially recipients of color. That Welfare Queen schtick is alive and well along with an idea that more money = better parents. Not true.
Then there’s the reality that not every relationship that produces a child is a safe healthy long term one. That’s not exclusive to any race, but the reality is that a WOC in an abusive situation is going to have an even harder time getting help. And more kids can make it harder to leave. And of course there’s the simply reality that not every pregnancy is a wanted pregnancy for a whole other host of reasons. But hey, why let facts get in the way when you can fin all new ways to pretend that WOC don’t love their children. After all, if they breed them but can’t feed them then the answer is to steal save them right? Right. Oh wait, I was supposed to be outraged at the idea of abortion wasn’t I? Sorry, I reserve that emotion for stupid manipulative ad campaigns that ignore reality.
And now a word from our sponsor...
| Your ad could be here, right now. |
Evaluating the Outrageous
We live in a country that begrudges people a living wage and health insurance. For some reason these are viewed as things you have to earn, and if you don’t manage to secure them then it’s all your fault for not using those magical boostraps.
When you were a child did you mother or father ever say to you “Nobody owes you a living”? Mine did. More than once, in fact. Yes, I think that a living wage has to be earned. In fact, the definition of the word “wage” is something that is earned in exchange for labor. Money that is not given in exchange for labor – money that is not earned – is in fact not a wage.
I’d never say that failing to earn one’s own way in life is automatically completely that person’s fault. For example, there are many people who have a mental or physical issue that makes it difficult or impossible to get gainful employment at a self-supporting level, and such a thing is not always obvious to uninformed observation. When you look at someone it’s easy to judge, but in fact you rarely actually know what you’re seeing and what you’re talking about.
Absent such an impediment, the primary responsibility for someone’s support is theirs, not society’s. Now, factors such as racism can affect that. My view on that is that if someone expects to be supported by society, it is their obligation to society to do whatever they can to earn as much as they can. That could mean whatever labor one can perform or it could mean pursuing an education. Society’s inability to completely eliminate racism – a situation I expect will improve but never reach perfection – doesn’t mean that society owes it’s victims a living without any effort on their part to do what they can.
Do you think that society has the primary obligation to support individuals? Or do you think that individuals have the primary obligation to support society? It seems to me that society gets it’s strength from the contributions of individuals. Without their contributions and support there IS no society.
I never said that people shouldn’t have to work for a living. But the American dream seems to be built on only some people earning enough to afford it. When you have a society where minimum wage isn’t a livable wage? You’ve created a no win scenario. Especially for the poor and undereducated since education (at any level) isn’t actually free or equitable in this country. You cannot set a population up for failure from birth, institutionally enforce nearly insurmountable obstacles, and then blame the population for not being able to compete on a level that requires access to tools and opportunities that you’ve held hostage. Well you can, but I’m not going to pretend it’s acceptable or wise behavior.
Why do you assume everyone’s support of society has to involve working for a wage? That automatically devalues the work of women and others who take care of their families without getting paid.
That mercenary attitude is destroying our society; the socialist countries that tried to provided for that are doing better in this Greater Depression.
Good point. I was reacting to the original comment without thinking through the implications completely. The original comment implied that everyone should be paid a wage as an entitlement, regardless of whether or not they actually performed any productive labor. Women who work raising families while their husband works do not earn a wage directly. However, they free up their husband (yeah, I’m presuming they’re married) to dedicate his time to a job. So they are directly contributing to society in general and that effort is indirectly compensated by their husband’s wages, which he shares with her.
That’s the way it’s SUPPOSED to work, anyway. Karnythia’s comment as stated would presume that the State owes everyone an independent income regardless of their marital status. I don’t know if that what she meant, that’s up to her to explain. IIRC the eligibility of a married woman for welfare is impacted by her husband’s income, a situation that has helped break up low income families as women find that they can subsist on a State-provided income (coupled with the entitlement to housing) and thus have an incentive to NOT marry the children of their father.
RonF,
Welfare guidelines made it impossible for low income families to stay together and receive assistance. This idea that women are running to get on public aid for life is yet another one of those fallacious ideas that is perpetrated to justify punitive welfare reform measures.
Ron, if I may ask, why are you not on public assistance? If it’s an easier way to live and available, why not just quit your job and live off of unemployment and welfare? I know I am being a bit snarky, but it’s actually a semi-serious question. Would you really sit around doing nothing-except, of course, for the large amount of time you would have to devote to standing in line, answering invasive questions, and filling out confusing forms to get the subsistance living that you could get from public aid?
This idea that women are running to get on public aid for life
Which is not what I said.
If it’s an easier way to live and available,
Which is also not what I said.
punitive welfare reform measures.
What welfare reform measures do you consider punitive?