Single mothers have an especially hard time getting out of poverty. Households headed by single mothers are four times as likely to be poor as are families headed by married couples.And the NY Times has a long story about a white woman who chose to have three kids with a black man who never married or supported her:
Still, many of these women are trying to get ahead. Some know instinctively what the studies show: Children who grow up in poor families are far more likely to become poor adults.
These mothers often rely on a network of support — not just from food stamps, housing subsidies, welfare, or other government programs people usually think of. They also depend on charities, churches, family, friends, personal drive, ambition and even luck to stay afloat.
Take the case of 29-year-old Jennifer Stepp, who lives in Reading, Pa. Like 14 million other people in the U.S. who live in families headed by single mothers, she's poor. And she faces incredible odds.
Stepp has three children by three different fathers. The father of her eldest child, 10-year-old Isaiah, is serving 30 years in federal prison for armed robbery.
Ms. Schairer’s life offers a vivid example of how rapidly norms have changed. She grew up in a small town outside Ann Arbor, where her life revolved around church and school and everyone she knew was married.The safety net is just enabling bad behavior. We would be much better off if the welfare benefits were cut off and the single moms were shamed into giving up their kids for adoption.
“I thought, ‘I’ll meet someone, and we’ll marry and have kids and the house and the white picket fence,’ ” she said. “That’s what I wanted. That’s what I still want.”
She got pregnant during her first year of college, left school and stayed in a troubled relationship that left her with three children when it finally collapsed six years ago. She has had little contact with the children’s father and receives no child support. With an annual income of just under $25,000, Ms. Schairer barely lifts her children out of poverty, but she is not one to complain. “I’m in this position because of decisions I made,” she said.
She buys generic cereal at about half the brand-name price, takes the children to church every week and posts their happy moments on her Facebook page. Inequality is a word she rarely uses, though her family life is a showcase of its broadening reach.
“Two incomes would certainly help with the bills,” she said. “But it’s parenting, too. I wish I could say, ‘Call your dad.’ ”
The leftist NPR and NY Times are too liberal to draw the obvious conclusions from these stories. They push for social polities that are breaking down the family and destroying America.
11 comments:
We would be much better off if the welfare benefits were cut off and the single moms were shamed into giving up their kids for adoption.
How about shaming them into giving their kids up to LGBT couples for adoption ?
It would take a lot of shame for that.
And the NY Times has a long story about a white woman who chose to have three kids with a black man who never married or supported her:
Do you think that it matters or makes a differnce or not that she is white and the father is black ?
Statistically, I think it does matter, yes. She said what she wanted, but that it not what she did. The story is about her choices, and the consequences.
"It would take a lot of shame for that."
OK, then how about some sort of "scarlet letter" for these women ?
That'll shame them real good, huh ?
"a long stroy about a white woman who chose to have three kids with a black man who never married or supported her"
Oh, the way you phrased it, it seemed like the story was about a WHITE woman, and what happened when she chose to have 3 children with a BLACK man.
Yeah, that is what the NY Times story was about. Count on the NY Times to stir up racial animosity without explicitly saying so.
The child is the scarlet letter. It just isn't so shameful anymore.
Does the leftist, liberal media tend to stir up racial animosity without explicitly saying so ? Or just the N.Y. Times ?
Good question. It would be easier if they would spell out their racial theories.
I read that NY Times piece, and thought it interesting that the conclusion they seemed to come to was- we need more sports programs for underpriviledged kids. Also, they got their cause and effect backward when they said that the wealthy were marrying and staying married. Stable marriages create wealth. But the NYT can't admit that traditional values have some basis other than controlling people.
I came across this post while searching for a precise term for "a safety net that encourages bad behavior." I used to know this term and can't think straight with this cold today. But there's a term for it.
When you know that you aren't risking the full amount - that the burden will fall, in part or in whole, on someone else's shoulders instead of your own - then absolutely you act differently. You're statistically more likely to take the risks. This is proven, measurable, and incontrovertible.
The problem comes when you try to use this fact in an argument with social consequences, and people come along with slippery-slope backtalk such as "Well why don't we just tease them until they kill themselves," and then you can see that they're never going to listen to a word you say.
But yeah. I've got multiple family members who should have learned something from kids-outside-marriage, but all it teaches them is to be leeches from goverment and from kin. I love my nephews and nieces dearly and wouldn't trade them for the world, but bringing back a bit of that social shame might help people remember - before they get into the situation - that it's a bad situation to be in, and let them choose a better path.
Post a Comment