Why is the USCCB so big on women working?

[seekerz]

I don’t think you can really state things like women were made by God to stay at home and care for the family because God made them more caring, nurturing, etc. Not all women should be mothers, or even stay at home mothers. Just because they are female does not automatically make them “nurturing”. I’ve known several men who would probably be better stay at home parents than their wives. It just depends on the individual. To me, that is a main point of feminism-being able to make the best decision for yourself without feeling pressure from social norms to take on a certain role just because of your gender. This would apply to both sexes.

To a certain extent I agree with you. Even as Catholics we believe that not every woman has the vocation to be married or religious; she can be single - in which case working at home might be rather boring. Motherhood doesn’t necessitate staying home either, IMO. I’ve at times simultaneously juggled motherhood and employment, with breaks as appropriate. All the women, as far back as my family line goes, have done that and raised decent kids who grew up to contribute something to society.

I think these are personal decisions and they should not be forced on anyone. Scriptures description of ‘the perfect wife’ sounds very much like a busy entrepreneur and mother, to me, and many women today opt for flexible working arrangements that allow them to be home more. What I feel very strongly about is barriers being placed to keep women out of certain occupations. If she is physically (or otherwise) unsuited for it, compared to a man, then she won’t succeed - but I see no reason to keep her from trying as long as she can meet the job’s requirements.

 

[Captain_America]

Some comments.

re: Pay Gap.
This is a to a very great extent a function of the market. Capitalism cares not a whit about gender, but about efficient productivity. To assume this means capitalism is “male” is a mistake.

re: other social goods.
Men have typically been freer of immediate domestic concerns than women simply because women are quantitatively and qualitatively better at dealing with children, infants, the infirm. This seems much more a matter of less testosterone than intentional, conscious bias.

The Hidden Elephant in the Room is here. . .
. . . women excel in areas the market doesn’t pay you for, or pay you much to do.

Even bigger secret:
maybe the really valuable things life are more important than the capitalistic market/capitalistic competition.

As a Man:
I see a lot of bad statistics in this “compare women to men” area. I see a lot of sad assumptions (“women should be like men” and “our personal worth is judged by how well each person does in the business world”). I think a broader view would see women and men as having similarities and differences, and that both live through these in their own way.

I also strongly feel that where our society preaches Competition to men as a route to achievement, this message is woefully thin: many of the great accomplishments one can do as a person require cooperation. Men are forced by the market to act in ways that are not necessarily in their best interest: sad to see women readily jumping into these constrictions.

 

[Captain_America]

Some intellectual HONESTY here. . .

Just because the gender of earlier rule makers was male, does not connect to the notion that their maleness affected the rule or its development.

There’s no logic to this, and no proof in this assertion. A group of female legislators can decide to change traffic direction on a street, and it may well have nothing to do with their gender, but take into account far more important considerations: traffic safety, road condition, etc.

It’s painful to see bishops being maligned simply because they were born male, as if philosophy, theology, intellectual skill and experience do not matter. This is a little like saying a man’s genitals tell him how to do calculus!

 

[seekerz]

Some intellectual HONESTY here. . .

Just because the gender of earlier rule makers was male, does not connect to the notion that their maleness affected the rule or its development.

There’s no logic to this, and no proof in this assertion. A group of female legislators can decide to change traffic direction on a street, and it may well have nothing to do with their gender, but take into account far more important considerations: traffic safety, road condition, etc.

It’s painful to see bishops being maligned simply because they were born male, as if philosophy, theology, intellectual skill and experience do not matter. This is a little like saying a man’s genitals tell him how to do calculus!

What do traffic light rules have to do with norms and societal attitudes? And who’s maligning the bishops - did they determine the panel’s composition?

 

[LisaA]

What do traffic light rules have to do with norms and societal attitudes? And who’s maligning the bishops - did they determine the panel’s composition?

No, I’m not sure how the panel was determined but again go to the ISSUE rather than your opinions. The issue was how does the HHS Mandate infringe on religious liberty. It would seem that those who speak for various religious faiths would be most qualified to speak on that subject. The reality is that for Catholics ALL of the Bishops are males. In Greek Orthodox ALL of the Bishops are males. In Judaism although there are female rabbis, it is the males who are the known Torah scholars. For the Evangelical tradition, while they have many well known female “preachers” the majority of the leaders in that tradition are males.

So we’re starting out with a limited opportunity to hear female voices since they are not recognized as leaders and with the ability to speak on behalf of the Catholic faith or the Orthodox faith, or Orthodox Judaism. Since these are the religions that have objected to the HHS Mandate on the grounds of conscious and religious liberty, it seems far more important to have experts, leaders and recognized authorities on the subject speak rather than a 30 year old “student” who wants free birth control. She has no expertise on the subject, religious liberty. She is simply the world’s greatest expert on her own opinion.

It’s interesting that those religions such as Episcopal (American version) which allow female Bishops are all for the mandate because they are focused not on the Constitution or religious liberty but on “rights.” A coincidence? I doubt it.

Lisa

 

[LucyLight]

Some comments.

The Hidden Elephant in the Room is here. . .
. . . women excel in areas the market doesn’t pay you for, or pay you much to do.

Even bigger secret:
maybe the really valuable things life are more important than the capitalistic market/capitalistic competition.
**

I kind of love this point:thumbsup:**

 

[LucyLight]

Some intellectual HONESTY here. . .

Just because the gender of earlier rule makers was male, does not connect to the notion that their maleness affected the rule or its development.

There’s no logic to this, and no proof in this assertion. A group of female legislators can decide to change traffic direction on a street, and it may well have nothing to do with their gender, but take into account far more important considerations: traffic safety, road condition, etc.

It’s painful to see bishops being maligned simply because they were born male, as if philosophy, theology, intellectual skill and experience do not matter. This is a little like saying a man’s genitals tell him how to do calculus!

Since men and women are different it would follow that they would likely do things differently just like people of different age groups and cultures. The problem with the math comparison is that math is 100% lawful so there is only one correct conclusion to come to. I’m not criticizing the bishops btw.

 

[quilisma]

I think these are personal decisions and they should not be forced on anyone. Scriptures description of ‘the perfect wife’ sounds very much like a busy entrepreneur and mother, to me, and many women today opt for flexible working arrangements that allow them to be home more. What I feel very strongly about is barriers being placed to keep women out of certain occupations. If she is physically (or otherwise) unsuited for it, compared to a man, then she won’t succeed - but I see no reason to keep her from trying as long as she can meet the job’s requirements.

I agree that these are personal decisions that should not be forced on anyone. Unfortunately the pendulum has swung so far in today’s American society (I can’t speak for other countries) that barriers have, in the last generation or so, been placed to keep women out of the home who feel called there. For eight years I was a homemaker, trying to become a mother, and all of you have probably seen the sort of reactions I would get from family and friends (especially female ones). “Oh, you don’t ‘work’. How can you be such a parasite? Don’t you realize you’re wasting your life/useless/a drain on society/male-dominated/fill-in-the-blank?”

When my husband was laid off and we began to have financial difficulties, we looked into debt counseling and were told they wouldn’t even TALK to us unless I (NOT he) got a paid job. No pressure there… oh no, not at all!

Eventually I was forced to accept a job offer I had not solicited or wanted, because no one would hire my husband, no matter how much time and energy we spent trying to find him work, and we were going to lose the rented roof over our heads if I did not abandon the decision we had both felt was best for me (i.e. staying at home).

I’m now imprisoned in the paid workforce against my will, trying to salvage what I can of what I still believe is my real vocation on weekends. Yet, according to the orthodoxy of these times, I should be overjoyed that I was “rescued” from oppression. I’m far less fulfilled now than I ever was as a homemaker.

My point is, I simply believe that many of us women in the paid workforce are not there because we wanted to be. We are there because of PRESSURE – societal and financial – not because of our own choice or vocation. Yes, there are many women who are there because they want to be – but, I believe, not nearly as many as the “feminists” and the media would have one think.

Just one woman’s perspective, from real experience rather than social theories.

 

[seekerz]

it seems far more important to have experts, leaders and recognized authorities on the subject speak rather than a 30 year old “student” who wants free birth control. She has no expertise on the subject, religious liberty. She is simply the world’s greatest expert on her own opinion.
Lisa

Who decides whose opinion is important in the secular legislative proceedings of a democratic country? I am against the mandate. I am for women having a say regardless of whether or not they lead religious organizations.

Religious liberty applies even to people who belong to no organization and read their Bibles (or other texts) at home. More importantly, legislators have sought to extend the mandate to all employers - not just religious organizations.

Even legislators seemed to have realized their error and subsequently sought the testimony of women on both sides of the issue. I don’t see why it’s so important to make their error seem not an error.

The more I think about it, the more I feel that if women had been represented to begin with, we might be having different conversations on this forum, regarding the testimony. Instead of discussing the sexual proclivities of college co-eds on campuses, we might be discussing how good it was to see women testify on why contraceptive coverage is not health care and hence not a right (like it or not, that is the other side’s argument and it cannot be overruled simply by talking about religious rights).

Perhaps we would even be discussing how oppressive and pervasive the contraceptive mentality is and how much psychological pressure has been put on women (particuarly the poor) to conform with it. Perhaps we might inquire why women’s private lives are the subject of targeted well-funded campaigns to ‘liberate’ their reproductive lives - campaigns based on economic theories propagated by men in the highest echelons of world finance. Perhaps we might ask if those men would be willing to subject themselves on a long-term basis to a small, but definite risk of deadly complications just for the sake of consequence-free sex (the story of Gossypol suggests they would not accept serious side-effects).

Perhaps we might even compare the risk of those deadly consequences with the much-touted benefits of hormonal contraception. It might even be that when the possible personal benefits are weighed against the known deadly risks, women might be less than impressed with the risk-benefit ratio. Perhaps we might question how much less exploited women have become since consequence-free sex became a reproductive right and exploited women (who were by no means all women) went from complaining of a single husband who kept them barefoot and pregnant to a string of men who change partners like they do shirts.

We might even get to dealing with the realities of millions of women who need to space births (face it, in a world where the simplest children’s activity has a sign-up fee and college costs are through the roof, those with limited economic means need to space births). How IS a woman to deal with the pressure to contracept without easy access to natural alternatives? I’ve been told on this forum that women can find information on NFP. That may well be so, but for the young family juggling multiple jobs and child care, is it any wonder they go with the coping strategy that finds them?

Nothing to do with religious rights of course - all the same they might have started a different kind of conversation. These are just a few words from a woman’s perspective - but hey, what do I know? I’m no expert…

 

[seekerz]

I agree that these are personal decisions that should not be forced on anyone. Unfortunately the pendulum has swung so far in today’s American society (I can’t speak for other countries) that barriers have, in the last generation or so, been placed to keep women out of the home who feel called there. For eight years I was a homemaker, trying to become a mother, and all of you have probably seen the sort of reactions I would get from family and friends (especially female ones). “Oh, you don’t ‘work’. How can you be such a parasite? Don’t you realize you’re wasting your life/useless/a drain on society/male-dominated/fill-in-the-blank?”

When my husband was laid off and we began to have financial difficulties, we looked into debt counseling and were told they wouldn’t even TALK to us unless I (NOT he) got a paid job. No pressure there… oh no, not at all!

Eventually I was forced to accept a job offer I had not solicited or wanted, because no one would hire my husband, no matter how much time and energy we spent trying to find him work, and we were going to lose the rented roof over our heads if I did not abandon the decision we had both felt was best for me (i.e. staying at home).

I’m now imprisoned in the paid workforce against my will, trying to salvage what I can of what I still believe is my real vocation on weekends. Yet, according to the orthodoxy of these times, I should be overjoyed that I was “rescued” from oppression. I’m far less fulfilled now than I ever was as a homemaker.

My point is, I simply believe that many of us women in the paid workforce are not there because we wanted to be. We are there because of PRESSURE – societal and financial – not because of our own choice or vocation. Yes, there are many women who are there because they want to be – but, I believe, not nearly as many as the “feminists” and the media would have one think.

Just one woman’s perspective, from real experience rather than social theories.

Believe me, I know that pressure. Wanting to stay home with a child that needs you when you possess an expensive education and can get a good job, is - to some in my circles - a sign of impending insanity. In my community though, that attitude was born not out of feminism, but out of the collective sigh of relief breathed by the older generation when at last the women of our generation were working for something more than the cost of remaining poor. Regardless of the basis, that is a real pressure on women wanting to stay home.

 

[Captain_America]

As a man, you get a little tired of always hearing how “biased” or “uncaring” or “non-understanding” you are just because of your physique.

It gets tiresome, and the more you hear this stuff the less concern you begin to give it. It’s a subtle kind of objectification or bias or discrimination in itself.

 

[seekerz]

As a man, you get a little tired of always hearing how “biased” or “uncaring” or “non-understanding” you are just because of your physique.

It gets tiresome, and the more you hear this stuff the less concern you begin to give it. It’s a subtle kind of objectification or bias or discrimination in itself.

The problem is that, unless you are personally biased, uncaring or non-understanding, gender issues need to be seen from the societal aspect rather than simply from the individual perspective. There are very many men who will go overboard to be fair, caring and open - there is no reason for them to personalize the observations that many things in society still need to change for there to be true gender equality.

 

[didymus]

‘It is an intolerable abuse, and to be abolished at all cost, for mothers on account of father’s low wage to be forced to engage in gainful occupations outside of the home.’

Pope Pius XI, ‘Quadragesimo Anno’

"We see a woman who, in order to augment her husband’s earnings, betakes herself also to a factory, leaving her house abandoned during her absence. The house, untidy and small perhaps before, becomes even more miserable for lack of care. Members of the family work separately in four quarters of the city and with different working hours. Scarcely ever do they find themselves together for dinner or rest after work – still less for prayer in common. What is left of family life? And what attractions can it offer to children?

"To such painful consequences of the absence of the mother from the home there is added another, still more deplorable. It concerns the education, especially of the young girl, and her preparation for real life. Accustomed as she is to see her mother always out of the house and the house itself so gloomy in its abandonment, she will be unable to find any attraction for it, she will not feel the slightest inclination for austere housekeeping jobs. She cannot be expected to appreciate their nobility and beauty or to wish one day to give herself to them as a wife and mother.

Thank you.
With the rise of industrial capitalism the family was destroyed. It has taken a long time for all of the consequences to unfold but that is what we are seeing now.

For most of human history now the family functioned as an economic unit, with all members contributing & working together, usually thru farming or in skilled labor (whatever that meant at the time), following the father’s trade of being apprenticed out . For women that usually meant raising the children and home plus some economic activity that gave them some small amt. of money of their own.

Now comes capitalism, everything is monetized. Whole populations are driven from place to place as surely as if they were pursued by an invading army. Fathers have to leave the home to seek work, women and children are driven into factories at wages lower than the father’s. No king would dare decree such a thing but economic necessity accomplishes what no tyrant could.

I can hear the howls now. Capitalism is the greatest engine for wealth and raising living standards. Maybe so. But is that the greatest good there is?
Money is the universal solvent & once capitalism takes over all human bonds are dissolved. One is no longer judged by character, family background, &c, just wealth.
A couple who have one or two kids, both working full time so they can give their kids everything are admired. Another couple who have a lot of kids with one parent full-time & the other p/t so the children have a full-time parent at home, just scraping by are considered at least odd and probably failures.

Just the very phrase “we can’t afford [any] children right now” betrays that children are no longer considered a blessing but luxury item.

No, I don’t know what the answer is. Just wage laws would have bad consequences.
But please quit trumpeting how wonderful the free-market is. It is a secular, anti-Christian product of the “Enlightenment” and we are seeing its endgame with the breakup of the family.

 

[seekerz]

Thank you.
With the rise of industrial capitalism the family was destroyed. It has taken a long time for all of the consequences to unfold but that is what we are seeing now.

For most of human history now the family functioned as an economic unit, with all members contributing & working together, usually thru farming or in skilled labor (whatever that meant at the time), following the father’s trade of being apprenticed out . For women that usually meant raising the children and home plus some economic activity that gave them some small amt. of money of their own.

Now comes capitalism, everything is monetized. Whole populations are driven from place to place as surely as if they were pursued by an invading army. Fathers have to leave the home to seek work, women and children are driven into factories at wages lower than the father’s. No king would dare decree such a thing but economic necessity accomplishes what no tyrant could.

I can hear the howls now. Capitalism is the greatest engine for wealth and raising living standards. Maybe so. But is that the greatest good there is?
Money is the universal solvent & once capitalism takes over all human bonds are dissolved. One is no longer judged by character, family background, &c, just wealth.
A couple who have one or two kids, both working full time so they can give their kids everything are admired. Another couple who have a lot of kids with one parent full-time & the other p/t so the children have a full-time parent at home, just scraping by are considered at least odd and probably failures.

Just the very phrase “we can’t afford [any] children right now” betrays that children are no longer considered a blessing but luxury item.

No, I don’t know what the answer is. Just wage laws would have bad consequences.
But please quit trumpeting how wonderful the free-market is. It is a secular, anti-Christian product of the “Enlightenment” and we are seeing its endgame with the breakup of the family.

Speaking from a black perspective, the unbridled desire for profit destroyed black societies and the family way before industrialism. The effects are still being seen in post-colonial countries today, but rather than acknowledge the obvious, here it is often blamed on the welfare system. While that most likely contributed as well, it was the exploitation and devaluation of black labor in pursuit of gain, which began the whole process.

I have no particular beef with the free-market/capitalism - only with their excesses. Any economic system run by man is liable to the same forces of greed and exploitation because of the human tendency to ‘get ahead’ at the expense of those seen as ‘the other’, regardless of the particular characteristics used to define ‘otherness’. Human nature not quite at its best I suppose…

 

[didymus]

Speaking from a black perspective, the unbridled desire for profit destroyed black societies and the family way before industrialism. The effects are still being seen in post-colonial countries today, but rather than acknowledge the obvious, here it is often blamed on the welfare system. While that most likely contributed as well, it was the exploitation and devaluation of black labor in pursuit of gain, which began the whole process.

True, and I’m sorry I didn’t include that, I’d certainly agree with all your points.

[quoteI have no particular beef with the free-market/capitalism - only with their excesses. Any economic system run by man is liable to the same forces of greed and exploitation because of the human tendency to ‘get ahead’ at the expense of those seen as ‘the other’, regardless of the particular characteristics used to define ‘otherness’. Human nature not quite at its best I suppose…
[/quote]

As Christian we are aware the Man is fallen. Seeing fellow humans as the “other” has always been around.

My only difference with you, I suppose is that capitalism’s “excesses” are not excesses at all but intrinsic.

 

[LucyLight]

As a man, you get a little tired of always hearing how “biased” or “uncaring” or “non-understanding” you are just because of your physique.

It gets tiresome, and the more you hear this stuff the less concern you begin to give it. It’s a subtle kind of objectification or bias or discrimination in itself.

To clarify I blame a lot of women for the favoritism that men get not just men. I have no reason to think that you are uncaring or not understanding. I think it’s more of a societal problem than an individual problem.

To your last point let me relate some personal experience. I grew up in a diverse community and I heard a lot of claims of racism. I got sick of it and eventually I just rolled my eyes at it. It wasn’t until I was older that I felt discrimination myself and it felt horrible. It opened my eyes to it and just like sin its everywhere. It’s unfortunate that I had to experience it myself to understand or even believe that their claims were true. We now have legislation that makes discrimination illegal and being openely sexist, racist etc… is frowned upon. However, you can’t change the way that people think. Now if someone tells me that they are being discriminated against I am inclined to believe them. You said that you feel discriminated against as a man and I would quess maybe as Catholic and I believe you when you say it’s tiresome. Perhaps this well help you understand how others feel who are being discriminated against.

 

[LisaA]

**Speaking from a black perspective, the unbridled desire for profit destroyed black societies and the family way before industrialism. **The effects are still being seen in post-colonial countries today, but rather than acknowledge the obvious, here it is often blamed on the welfare system. While that most likely contributed as well, it was the exploitation and devaluation of black labor in pursuit of gain, which began the whole process.

I have no particular beef with the free-market/capitalism - only with their excesses. Any economic system run by man is liable to the same forces of greed and exploitation because of the human tendency to ‘get ahead’ at the expense of those seen as ‘the other’, regardless of the particular characteristics used to define ‘otherness’. Human nature not quite at its best I suppose…

I dont think that statement is supported by the facts. The black family was far stronger before the rise of the welfare state and before the removal of social stigma of out of wedlock births. Even in the 1960s Daniel Patrick Moynihan (a liberal east coast Democrat) predicted the death of the black family due to the rise in unwed mothers. He would be amazed how his prediction has come true and the statistics are even worse.

How did the industrial revolution destroy the black family? Don’t you think the structure of the welfare payment was more at fault? If you read a history of welfare, the original focus was on war widows with children. They were considered the ‘deserving poor’ and worthy of help. As time went on more and more groups were pulled into the net. Given that women were unable to get welfare benefits IF they were married, it created a perverse incentive for women not to marry and the sperm donor not to act as a responsible father. Even now women refuse to name the father claiming they 'don’t know" because if a father is named the state can go after him for the benefits. Again a perverse incentive.

I think we should incentivise personal responsibility rather than punishing it. The do gooder mentality may have had great intentions but they’ve paved a road to hell for generations of blacks.

Lisa

 

[seekerz]

True, and I’m sorry I didn’t include that, I’d certainly agree with all your points.

I have no particular beef with the free-market/capitalism - only with their excesses. Any economic system run by man is liable to the same forces of greed and exploitation because of the human tendency to ‘get ahead’ at the expense of those seen as ‘the other’, regardless of the particular characteristics used to define ‘otherness’. Human nature not quite at its best I suppose…

I definitely see your point. One of the reasons the supremacy of the free-market is held as a creed in some circles, is that the beneficiaries are often shielded from the exploitative aspects of the system. For example, so much is heard about poor countries with corrupt rulers whose people live in poverty, but very little about unjust international trade rules and financial aid conditions which exacerbate/perpetuate the situation. How can it ever be morally justified for financial aid or loans from developed countries to be tied to the condition that recipient nations open up their markets to tobacco products and processed food of questionable nutritional value (targeted toward women and children)?

 

[BlindManWalking]

I definitely see your point. One of the reasons the supremacy of the free-market is held as a creed in some circles, is that the beneficiaries are often shielded from the exploitative aspects of the system. For example, so much is heard about poor countries with corrupt rulers whose people live in poverty, but very little about unjust international trade rules and financial aid conditions which exacerbate/perpetuate the situation. How can it ever be morally justified for financial aid or loans from developed countries to be tied to the condition that recipient nations open up their markets to tobacco products and processed food of questionable nutritional value (targeted toward women and children)?

You’re off the mark on tobacco… having traveled to other countries, they’re well aware of cigarettes and various types of tobacco. It’s not like “French Cigarettes” were frozen tobacco leaves dropped into boiling oil at McDonalds and later exported to unsuspecting lungs.

Per the questionable food/seed- this is an issue conservatives and liberals alike should be able to agree on. Monsanto and similar are outright evil and they’re doing nothing but genetic experimentation at the level of seeds. Where does it end? From India to Iraq to the good old USA, farmers are not happy with this.

I find this very interesting:

One of the reasons the supremacy of the free-market is held as a creed in some circles, is that the beneficiaries are often shielded from the exploitative aspects of the system.

I find it interesting because it could just as easily be said of totalitarian/socialist systems. You’ve done nothing more than describe the human condition of “haves” and “have not’s”, a situation which will never be resolved outside of Christ’s return and even then it carries into eternity: have beatific vision or view Hell; I believe the Good Lord, in His infinite wisdom, has allowed such a system to show His mercy to all. No man is greater than the starving man with nothing to his name but Jesus Christ. We should all be so lucky for that opportunity to count on God only in the throes of life and death; from there- charity, true charity, can take place.

I’m not saying we should exacerbate the condition of the poor to maintain a “grateful” caste, but that we shouldn’t immediately think that any system is HQed in Shangri-La, nor should we buy into the notion that any system forthcoming is such a paradise in its strictest practice because the #1 failing of any and all systems is morality.

When morals go, love goes, and when love goes, the most ardent attempts at affecting a proper society and system go to pot.

I have no idea what a “black perspective” is but a joke. It’s just as much of a joke as a “white” perspective. Well, which white guy/woman? Which Latino? Asian? Indian? Arab? Muslim? Christian? Jew?

Whatever happened to humanity? Can’t we just step back and say, “well, as humans, what is best?”? No, not until sin is rid from this world.

In the meantime, allowing individuals a system in which to prosper, own private property, etc is the best. Socialism? Communism? Christian Democratic Welfare States? “Distributism” (the impossible dream? ), etc will fail in attaining perfection.

So long as one is crying, hungry, without, marginalized, left to the wolves, etc: God ain’t happy with it. And only He can provide for everyone infinitely.

So, where does that leave us? With a solution or confused and back at square one?

Ever notice how confused societies remain, and the more they think they have it figured out, the more confused they get the farther they get from God?

Hmm… where have I seen this out my window before?

 

[seekerz]

I dont think that statement is supported by the facts. The black family was far stronger before the rise of the welfare state and before the removal of social stigma of out of wedlock births. Even in the 1960s Daniel Patrick Moynihan (a liberal east coast Democrat) predicted the death of the black family due to the rise in unwed mothers. He would be amazed how his prediction has come true and the statistics are even worse.

How did the industrial revolution destroy the black family? Don’t you think the structure of the welfare payment was more at fault? If you read a history of welfare, the original focus was on war widows with children. They were considered the ‘deserving poor’ and worthy of help. As time went on more and more groups were pulled into the net. Given that women were unable to get welfare benefits IF they were married, it created a perverse incentive for women not to marry and the sperm donor not to act as a responsible father. Even now women refuse to name the father claiming they 'don’t know" because if a father is named the state can go after him for the benefits. Again a perverse incentive.

I think we should incentivise personal responsibility rather than punishing it. The do gooder mentality may have had great intentions but they’ve paved a road to hell for generations of blacks.

Lisa

I think you misunderstand me. I said the black family and black societies were decimated before the industrial revolution. Forced mass migration by way of the slave trade and separation of families according to the labor needs of plantations rather than according to kinship, caused social breakdown. Even apart from slavery, land use policies and the needs of industry (e.g. in Africa and elsewhere) led to mass movements of men from the countryside to the areas where there labor was required. The result? In multiple, post-colonial countries (the Caribbean comes to mind) households were headed by women and the pursuit of employment for economic survival, tore men from their families until such living arrangements became part of the culture. There were, of course, other contributory factors but the historical train of events is clear. Limiting the scope to present conditions here, it may seem that welfare is to blame, but what explains similar family dynamics in countries where government assistance is practically zero?