bluesmama wrote:
> Mark Sobolewski wrote:
[clean up.  If you need to read the above text,
check out the previous post]

> > > Do mothers abandon their children as often as men do? I know of
> more
> > > absentee Dads than I do absentee Moms.
> >
> > It looks like some more "cloudy" weather is in store for
> > me here in Northern Virginia. :-)
>
> I didn't get that one, sorry. Please explain! Just put two toddlers
> down for a  nap and am still trying to get the Teletubbies theme song
> out of my head...

Sure.  I was making a silly reference to another post you made
saying I was "clouding" the issue by talking about trust.
Not important.

> > The FACT remains that single mothers LEGALLY abandon their children
> > or exploit them for cash and single fathers do not.
>
> No single fathers exploit their children for cash? Are there no
welfare
> fathers in the whole U.S.?

Indeed.  We would have to look under a lot of rocks to find
such a mythical man while single mothers exploiting kids are so common
that we don't even think about it.

> > If men were able to exploit the kids for cash, maybe they
> > would stick around too, eh?
>
> Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't.

Sure they would.  Welfare reform for the past 30 years has been
about holding the father accountable in order to try to
reduce the rolls.

Ironically, it was, I kid you not, Ronald Reagan who pioneered
this approach and even promised to EXPAND welfare benefits
to single mothers thinking that they would be a core
and smaller group after the fathers got "motivated" and
put most families back on their feet.  Instead, he miscalculated
and created a market for teenage motherhood.  He later
criticized this same situation!  (Hey, he wasn't perfect, ok?)

> Some women may have children for
> all the wrong reasons, and if there was some way to discourage that
> kind of behavior without having the innocent chidren suffer, then I
> might have less compassion for single welfare moms.

Now here's some more mental gymnastics: You condemn
exploiting innocent children except where you say it's
done to protect them.  OK.

>Frankly, I'd rather
> my tax money went to feed kids and  moms on welfare than to bomb
people
> in other countries.

It's absolutely amazing, isn't it, how generous you are
with taxpayer money when it's women exploiting their children?
When it's a man, he's a deadbeat who should be hunted down.

> > > And as far as welfare goes, the "payoff" isn't all that much
> compared
> > > to the effort required in raising a child.
> >
> > So she needn't have one.  What were you saying about
> > "taking responsibility" again?  Oh, wait, the
> > taxpayer shouldn't just pay HER bills but they
> > should clean her home and change the diapers for
> > the kid too?
>
> Isn't there always going to be an underclass (socio-economically
> speaking) that requires some assistance?

Certainly.  So how about "assisting" her by threatening
her with jail time if she doesn't get back on her feet
in a few months.  It does WONDERS for men, eh?

> Isn't it the mark of a
> compassionate society that those who can, do for those who cannot?

Oh, lessee:

1) Compassion for unwanted unborn children: abort 'em
2) Compassion for men who sleep with the wrong woman:
Tough.  Pay mommy support or go to jail.

When it's women who have a problem and need state assistance,
feminism dictates that compassion is suddenly warranted.

> > Gee, why isn't my heart bleeding?
>
> > > The trust/responsibility thing: we obviously will not see eye to
> eye on
> > > this, so we might as well consider the subject closed, and each
> > > continue to believe we're right
> >
> > It sounds like you're running away.  I'm cool with that.
> > If a welfare mother barely runs away from her children
> > for profit, one can't hold you to a higher standard.
> >
> > regards,
> > Mark Sobolewski
>
> It was an awkward attempt at a taunt, but I'm not offended by your
> comparison, in any case. If continuing to argue the difference in our
> opinions seemed to be profitable to either one of us, I might
continue.
> But it seems as if we're both stuck firmly on our own side of the
> fence...if you want to see that as running away, that's fine. I just
> don't know how much further the discussion can go before it's just
both
> of us saying "Is too!" and "Is not!" and that just
seems like such a
> waste of time.

Except that I've raised counter points to what you just wrote.
If you want to leave them unanswered, fine.  I'm not just
saying "I disagree with you."  If you leave points unanswered,
you are just "running away" or dropping that topic as
something that you feel you can defend.  That's ok.

But note that other people will pick it up and not necessarily
(heck, VERY necessarily) without feminism's interests in mind.
You let out the dogs on deadbeat dads and now new technology
is available to get them out.  Those dogs are a-hungry.
Welfare children can be quite tasty...

regards,
Mark Sobolewski



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/1/05 9:34:48 PM ---