Blaming single motherhood on welfare? Why?

[Genivaria]

The real question I think is why OP is focusing on Single Mothers specifically and not just Single Parents.

[Maricarland]

The real question I think is why OP is focusing on Single Mothers specifically and not just Single Parents.

That is a good point.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

The US and it is 100% real. This isn't a "myth of easily abused welfare". This is a person I worked alongside for over a year. I have met others but none abused the system as badly.

"This isn't the very popular lie told by American right wingers, this is a personal anecdote."

Wow, convincing. America must have a very serious problem if you know one person who you think cost the state in one year less than the cost of a few hours of the Iraq War.

I'm not right wing and I opposed the Iraq war. Both are strawmen regardless.

[Ifreann]

"This isn't the very popular lie told by American right wingers, this is a personal anecdote."

Wow, convincing. America must have a very serious problem if you know one person who you think cost the state in one year less than the cost of a few hours of the Iraq War.

I'm not right wing and I opposed the Iraq war.

I didn't say anything about you.

Both are strawmen regardless.

Go look up what that means.

[Kowani]

racism in the service of capital (or capital in the service of racism if you're so inclined)

it was and is a rhetorical tactic to link an outgroup that lacked political power to redistributive (and the taxes that accompanied them) programs that the capitalist class (and their ideological adherents) opposed and needed political cover to justify cutting

[Latvijas Otra Republika]

racism in the service of capital (or capital in the service of racism if you're so inclined)

it was and is a rhetorical tactic to link an outgroup that lacked political power to redistributive (and the taxes that accompanied them) programs that the capitalist class (and their ideological adherents) opposed and needed political cover to justify cutting

I’m thirteen and this is deep

[Maricarland]

racism in the service of capital (or capital in the service of racism if you're so inclined)

it was and is a rhetorical tactic to link an outgroup that lacked political power to redistributive (and the taxes that accompanied them) programs that the capitalist class (and their ideological adherents) opposed and needed political cover to justify cutting

I’m thirteen and this is deep

More accurately it just true American history (and probably the history of reactionary politics internationally since the 1950s).

[Ayytaly]

The real question I think is why OP is focusing on Single Mothers specifically and not just Single Parents.

Because men aren't seen in the same vein as women, despite single fathers becoming so via either divorce (and subsequentially court ordered to be the guardian), being left for another man (hypergamy), or even being a recent widow (funerary costs). Single fathers on welfare is quite the recent phenomena.

[Ifreann]

being left for another man (hypergamy)

lol

[Kowani]

racism in the service of capital (or capital in the service of racism if you're so inclined)

it was and is a rhetorical tactic to link an outgroup that lacked political power to redistributive (and the taxes that accompanied them) programs that the capitalist class (and their ideological adherents) opposed and needed political cover to justify cutting

I’m thirteen and this is deep

i see no reubttals here

[GuessTheAltAccount]

The real question I think is why OP is focusing on Single Mothers specifically and not just Single Parents.

Fathers have to convince the courts they're more fit to parent a kid than mothers who know for a fact, not just an assumption, that the kid is actually theirs. Of course they're going to task the mother with raising the kid by default.

racism in the service of capital (or capital in the service of racism if you're so inclined)

it was and is a rhetorical tactic to link an outgroup that lacked political power to redistributive (and the taxes that accompanied them) programs that the capitalist class (and their ideological adherents) opposed and needed political cover to justify cutting

And yet, racists never were quite numerous enough to, let's say, get laws that explicitly depended on the race of the particular welfare recipient in question. If even so much as 49% of voters looked down specifically on black single mothers on welfare, that would still leave the question of who's that 2% they're pandering to who are such market-worshippers yet otherwise not racist that even the notion of carving out an exception for non-black single mothers on welfare was unthinkable to them.

[Maricarland]

The real question I think is why OP is focusing on Single Mothers specifically and not just Single Parents.

Fathers have to convince the courts they're more fit to parent a kid than mothers who know for a fact, not just an assumption, that the kid is actually theirs. Of course they're going to task the mother with raising the kid by default.

Couldn't a simple DNA test confirm genetic paternity.

Also what does the genetic factor matter. My father (who died when I was 12, leaving my mother a widow), could not produce sperm, but both he and my mother wanted children so they spent a lot of money to have me (and my younger brother, and one miscarriage) conceived by sperm donor. My father is listed as my father on my birth certificate, and he claimed me, and had a part in the decision and means to conceive me even if he was unable to provide the genetic material to conceive me.

My uncle Stevie (who is really my cousin biologically, his father, my uncle Steve, had him at 17 and the mother did not want him, so he was raised by my and his grandparents as their child, and as my mother's brother, until he was told the truth as an adult), has had 6 children by 3 different mothers, the mother of his first two children did not want to be a mother either and signed over custody to him in exchange for a cheeseburger, and he was a single father until he married a new woman when his first two children were still young (around 3 and 2, I believe). How is the mother of my uncle Stevie's first two children more of a parent to their children than my uncle Stevie, just because she carried the pregnancy and is the mother instead of the father?

Single fatherhood can result from a number of things, just like single motherhood. Death, divorce, break-up, adoption, sperm donor/surrogate mother, etc...

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Fathers have to convince the courts they're more fit to parent a kid than mothers who know for a fact, not just an assumption, that the kid is actually theirs. Of course they're going to task the mother with raising the kid by default.

Couldn't a simple DNA test confirm genetic paternity.

Also what does the genetic factor matter. My father (who died when I was 12, leaving my mother a widow), could not produce sperm, but both he and my mother wanted children so they spent a lot of money to have me (and my younger brother, and one miscarriage) conceived by sperm donor. My father is listed as my father on my birth certificate, and he claimed me, and had a part in the decision and means to conceive me even if he was unable to provide the genetic material to conceive me.

My uncle Stevie (who is really my cousin biologically, his father, my uncle Steve, had him at 17 and the mother did not want him, so he was raised by my and his grandparents as their child, and as my mother's brother, until he was told the truth as an adult), has had 6 children by 3 different mothers, the mother of his first two children did not want to be a mother either and signed over custody to him in exchange for a cheeseburger, and he was a single father until he married a new woman when his first two children were still young (around 3 and 2, I believe). How is the mother of my uncle Stevie's first two children more of a parent to their children than my uncle Stevie, just because she carried the pregnancy and is the mother instead of the father?

Single fatherhood can result from a number of things, just like single motherhood. Death, divorce, break-up, adoption, sperm donor/surrogate mother, etc...

And yet, single motherhood is more common than single fatherhood. Almost as if either men are feigning willingness to stay with her if she gets pregnant just to get into her pants, or women are keeping the baby after telling him she wouldn't to get him into hers.

I'd presume the latter by default. The former seems to come from the same people who mistook me for a basement dweller when I was gainfully employed overseas. Not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer.

[Kowani]

The real question I think is why OP is focusing on Single Mothers specifically and not just Single Parents.

Fathers have to convince the courts they're more fit to parent a kid than mothers who know for a fact, not just an assumption, that the kid is actually theirs. Of course they're going to task the mother with raising the kid by default.

racism in the service of capital (or capital in the service of racism if you're so inclined)

it was and is a rhetorical tactic to link an outgroup that lacked political power to redistributive (and the taxes that accompanied them) programs that the capitalist class (and their ideological adherents) opposed and needed political cover to justify cutting

And yet, racists never were quite numerous enough to, let's say, get laws that explicitly depended on the race of the particular welfare recipient in question. If even so much as 49% of voters looked down specifically on black single mothers on welfare, that would still leave the question of who's that 2% they're pandering to who are such market-worshippers yet otherwise not racist that even the notion of carving out an exception for non-black single mothers on welfare was unthinkable to them.

a basic understanding of american law lmao
the connection of race to welfare in the minds of the public came after the legal bedrock of the american state prevented that sort of thing

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Fathers have to convince the courts they're more fit to parent a kid than mothers who know for a fact, not just an assumption, that the kid is actually theirs. Of course they're going to task the mother with raising the kid by default.



And yet, racists never were quite numerous enough to, let's say, get laws that explicitly depended on the race of the particular welfare recipient in question. If even so much as 49% of voters looked down specifically on black single mothers on welfare, that would still leave the question of who's that 2% they're pandering to who are such market-worshippers yet otherwise not racist that even the notion of carving out an exception for non-black single mothers on welfare was unthinkable to them.

a basic understanding of american law lmao
the connection of race to welfare in the minds of the public came after the legal bedrock of the american state prevented that sort of thing

The law only has as much power as the public gives it. Presidents can stack the benches if they have popular opinion on their side; or sometimes even if they merely seem to at the time; the past few years have shown this.

Anyway, how would you even prove it's about race and not some honour-before-reason type opposition to use tax dollars to help the poor? Plenty of policies that would help most white people are opposed by the same market worshippers for the same reason.

[Kowani]

a basic understanding of american law lmao
the connection of race to welfare in the minds of the public came after the legal bedrock of the american state prevented that sort of thing

The law only has as much power as the public gives it. Presidents can stack the benches if they have popular opinion on their side; or sometimes even if they merely seem to at the time; the past few years have shown this.

courts and racists are big on this thing called "plausible deniability" for a reason lmao
making the entire legal system collapse once it loses its legitimacy isn't really something they're in favour of

Anyway, how would you even prove it's about race and not some honour-before-reason type opposition to use tax dollars to help the poor? Plenty of policies that would help most white people are opposed by the same market worshippers for the same reason.

...because you said " laws that explicitly depended on the race of the particular welfare recipient in question"

[Jello Biafra]

The prevalence of single motherhood by state in the United States does not strongly correlate with the states that give more generous welfare. For the most part, it is just the opposite - the higher rates of single motherhood are in states with less generous welfare programs.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

The prevalence of single motherhood by state in the United States does not strongly correlate with the states that give more generous welfare. For the most part, it is just the opposite - the higher rates of single motherhood are in states with less generous welfare programs.

I'm just wondering why people need comparisons by state at all when comparison to Nordic countries as a whole makes the point far more clearly. Theoretically if you denied poor women who wanted kids welfare they could get themselves pregnant off rich men instead of ordinary men; if anything poverty might make them desperate enough to be more likely to resort to that than less; it's not like an ordinary man can provide as much in marriage as a rich man can provide through child support bills. If anything that's a loophole in prostitution law. (Not that I think prostitution should be illegal anyway.)

The law only has as much power as the public gives it. Presidents can stack the benches if they have popular opinion on their side; or sometimes even if they merely seem to at the time; the past few years have shown this.

courts and racists are big on this thing called "plausible deniability" for a reason lmao
making the entire legal system collapse once it loses its legitimacy isn't really something they're in favour of

Anyway, how would you even prove it's about race and not some honour-before-reason type opposition to use tax dollars to help the poor? Plenty of policies that would help most white people are opposed by the same market worshippers for the same reason.

...because you said " laws that explicitly depended on the race of the particular welfare recipient in question"

I don't think the mere existence of plausible deniability in some forms is reason enough to completely reverse the burden of proof.

[Ayytaly]

Since DNA was mentioned, should there be a law where a man can divorce his wife and avoid alimony should the child--the reason for their marriage--not be his? And should the child not be his, can the husband legally strip him of his name he gave it?

[Maricarland]

Since DNA was mentioned, should there be a law where a man can divorce his wife and avoid alimony should the child--the reason for their marriage--not be his? And should the child not be his, can the husband legally strip him of his name he gave it?

No, not only is it petty, but it ignores common sense, decency, and reason. People should already be allowed to divorce for whatever reason, so that would include a man choosing to divorce because of infidelity and a child that was the result of such infidelity, but that does not change divorce law and alimony is essentially one partner (male or female or otherwise) being obligated to provide a pension like stipend to the other partner after divorce because the first partner was only able to generate their level of income, wealth, or success because of the shared labor (like taking care of the house, emotional support, raising children, etc...) of both parties, but one party does not directly get the fruits of that labor and are entitled to it in a divorce. There are cases to be made regarding alimony and you will have to make a claim that a judge will buy if you wish to claim alimony, etc... but I don't see how having a child through infidelity would invalidate an alimony claim. As for the name, you cannot be serious, it is just a name, if I wanted or if my parents/guardians wanted while I was growing to change my name to "random first name" Clinton, they could, you cannot tell someone that they cannot have a specific name (unless said name is illegal to be a given name in the first place).

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Since DNA was mentioned, should there be a law where a man can divorce his wife and avoid alimony should the child--the reason for their marriage--not be his? And should the child not be his, can the husband legally strip him of his name he gave it?

No, not only is it petty, but it ignores common sense, decency, and reason. People should already be allowed to divorce for whatever reason, so that would include a man choosing to divorce because of infidelity and a child that was the result of such infidelity, but that does not change divorce law and alimony is essentially one partner (male or female or otherwise) being obligated to provide a pension like stipend to the other partner after divorce because the first partner was only able to generate their level of income, wealth, or success because of the shared labor (like taking care of the house, emotional support, raising children, etc...) of both parties, but one party does not directly get the fruits of that labor and are entitled to it in a divorce. There are cases to be made regarding alimony and you will have to make a claim that a judge will buy if you wish to claim alimony, etc... but I don't see how having a child through infidelity would invalidate an alimony claim. As for the name, you cannot be serious, it is just a name, if I wanted or if my parents/guardians wanted while I was growing to change my name to "random first name" Clinton, they could, you cannot tell someone that they cannot have a specific name (unless said name is illegal to be a given name in the first place).

If that's what this were about, shouldn't the court have to prove the alimony recipient engaged in "shared labor" before awarding them said alimony?

That said, I'd be all for giving her welfare dollars instead of alimony to the wife to keep her and the kid out of poverty.

[Kowani]

The prevalence of single motherhood by state in the United States does not strongly correlate with the states that give more generous welfare. For the most part, it is just the opposite - the higher rates of single motherhood are in states with less generous welfare programs.

I'm just wondering why people need comparisons by state at all when comparison to Nordic countries as a whole makes the point far more clearly. Theoretically if you denied poor women who wanted kids welfare they could get themselves pregnant off rich men instead of ordinary men; if anything poverty might make them desperate enough to be more likely to resort to that than less; it's not like an ordinary man can provide as much in marriage as a rich man can provide through child support bills. If anything that's a loophole in prostitution law. (Not that I think prostitution should be illegal anyway.)

courts and racists are big on this thing called "plausible deniability" for a reason lmao
making the entire legal system collapse once it loses its legitimacy isn't really something they're in favour of

...because you said " laws that explicitly depended on the race of the particular welfare recipient in question"

I don't think the mere existence of plausible deniability in some forms is reason enough to completely reverse the burden of proof.

...what
this is incomprehensible gibberish

[GuessTheAltAccount]

I'm just wondering why people need comparisons by state at all when comparison to Nordic countries as a whole makes the point far more clearly. Theoretically if you denied poor women who wanted kids welfare they could get themselves pregnant off rich men instead of ordinary men; if anything poverty might make them desperate enough to be more likely to resort to that than less; it's not like an ordinary man can provide as much in marriage as a rich man can provide through child support bills. If anything that's a loophole in prostitution law. (Not that I think prostitution should be illegal anyway.)



I don't think the mere existence of plausible deniability in some forms is reason enough to completely reverse the burden of proof.

...what
this is incomprehensible gibberish

...care to ask any follow-up questions, then? On even so much as the first part you weren't sure about?

[The Black Forrest]

...what
this is incomprehensible gibberish

...care to ask any follow-up questions, then? On even so much as the first part you weren't sure about?

Not sure what you were trying to say either.

[Saiwania]

Since DNA was mentioned, should there be a law where a man can divorce his wife and avoid alimony should the child--the reason for their marriage--not be his? And should the child not be his, can the husband legally strip him of his name he gave it?

Alimony is needed to begin with, because whoever isn't earning income or is making substantially less (usually the woman) will have a tremendously difficult time finding work again if they're out of the workforce for too long. They're screwed over at least on a short term basis. Their career prospects or pay will take a big hit because if they want back in, they essentially have to start all over again from scratch.

Hence the temporary subsidy, because the person sacrificed income/wages to stay at home to do domestic duties which society doesn't reward but is nonetheless important for stability in family/household dynamics.

There is perhaps grounds to strip someone of alimony if they already have money and won't have a difficult time going forward without their ex's resources- but not until those facts can be established.