Well I have some good news and some bad news.
The good news is that I have been posting for THREE YEARS now this November.
So Happy Anniversary to me...
I first started this blog in November of 2004. It was the end result of much brian-storming and soul-searching. I intially had so many other ideas of things to do to address the issues I write about and even thought about other groups I could join forces with...but in the end, I felt my views would best be expressed openly and honestly, if I worked alone and accepted no assistance (including financial) from anyone.
So this little blog was born.
The bad news is that I am not posting another original article today, but another repeat of a post from two years ago.
Still relevant, however, still relevant...
Saturday, August 13, 2005
Another Urban Myth Shot Down...
Well we finally have a study linking child support enforcement to a lowering of single mother birth rates.
“Researchers at the University of Washington and Columbia University said Friday that child support laws' power to reduce single parenthood is an unintended consequence of a policy designed to help children and cut public welfare costs.”
Often the unintended effects are bad, so it's refreshing to see that," said lead study author Robert Plotnick, a University of Washington professor of public affairs. "Women living in states that do a better job of enforcing child support are less likely to become an unwed mother."
The really GOOD NEWS is that this clearly demonstrates that women do NOT have children to get child support; as the states that collect the MOST child support have demonstrated a 20% DROP in single motherhood. So if women were having kids to collect support you would see just the opposite happen with a 20% increase in single mothers to match the child support collected.
So another urban myth shot down.
This could be more BAD NEWS for those who hate mothers and like to spread lies about us.
AND MORE BAD NEWS:
Additional research will now be required to ascertain if actual population NUMBERS in any particular community are being impacted OR if this study's results just means more mothers getting married now, so no drop in overall population for any community has occurred. Although somehow I suspect this drop in numbers of single mothers is mainly translating into lower population within the African-American community.
AND one must always suspect any public policy where this is the ultimate outcome.
Thus the search for truth continues.
Study Ties State Laws, Unwed Child Births
By REBECCA COOK, Associated Press Writer
Sat Jun 18, 2005, 1:52 PM ET SEATTLE - Tough child support laws may dissuade men from becoming unwed fathers, as states with the most stringent laws and strict enforcement have up to 20 percent fewer out-of-wedlock births, a new study shows.
Researchers at the University of Washington and Columbia University said Friday that child support laws' power to reduce single parenthood is an unintended consequence of a policy designed to help children and cut public welfare costs.
"Often the unintended effects are bad, so it's refreshing to see that," said lead study author Robert Plotnick, a University of Washington professor of public affairs. "Women living in states that do a better job of enforcing child support are less likely to become an unwed mother."
The percentage of unmarried births in the United States has increased from 10 percent in the 1960s to about a third of all births today. Because children of single parents run a higher risk of poverty, academic failure and other problems, lawmakers are always seeking policies that will discourage unwed births — usually focusing on the mothers.
Researchers said their study recognizes the father's responsibility. "Decisions about sexual intercourse and marriage involve two people," said study co-author Irwin Garfinkel, a Columbia University professor and one of the nation's top experts on child support. The study, which has not yet been published, looked at a nationwide sample of 5,195 women of childbearing age using data from 1980-1993.
It didn't show whether tougher child support laws prevented pregnancies or encouraged marriage. Plotnick said the data limited the researchers to observing a strong correlation between tough child support enforcement and fewer out-of-wedlock births. Whether that's caused by fewer unmarried people getting pregnant or more couples marrying when the woman is expecting, he could not say. But he said the findings warrant further study.
"It's been very hard to find conventional programs that reduce unwed childbearing that work," Plotnick said Friday. "If you found a program cutting nonmarried births by 20 percent, you'd be happy."
Researchers noted wide disparities in child support policies. For example, in 2002 — the most recent year for which data were available — only one state, New Jersey, collected at least 80 percent of owed child support.
According to Columbia University's National Center for Children in Poverty, 31 states collected 41 percent to 60 percent of child support orders. The District of Columbia collected less than 20 percent of all child support owed.
posted by NYMOM | Saturday, August 13, 2005
The old saying is: "correlation is not causation." (A Polish friend of mine LOVES this English saying because it has a nice rhyme to it and is so often true.)
If single motherhood rates are going down, it may be due to a number of factors not necessarily tied directly to increased child-support enforcement or even potential single mother's choices: Maybe single motherhood rates are going down because of fear over welfare reform overall. Or maybe the women likely to become single mothers are just moving to other states for some particular reason. Or as you pointed out: Maybe women are just getting married more. And of course, maybe it's not just single mothers who make choices but also men: A system that relies upon men being breadwinners must therefore have breadwinning men both stupid enough to sleep around at random _and_ intelligent enough to bring home an income.
I've noticed a lot of posters around warning men about the pitfalls of not using contraception and being busted for child-support. There's wanted posters for deadbeat dads at nearly every post office in many states. Working men have to be _incredibly_ stupid to not get this message.
Of course, lots of men are driven by hormones to either ignore the risks or try to hedge them. The sexual revolution has given them access to a lot of sexually available women, but they must now deal with the pitfalls. This ties into the male BC pill or contraceptive which would be far more revolutionary than abortion rights since men wouldn't be bluffing: They really wouldn't want to have children from casual sex.
Yes I understand that correlation is not causation, not always
Yet sometimes it is.
I think we need to look a little deeper into the issue BEFORE we decide that there is no correlation between rise in collection of child support and 20% drop in single mothers.
As this is a pretty big drop.
I mean men have always wanted casual sex, even in very puritanical societies with harsh punishments for both men and women for acting upon this. So to me this is a given that nothing will impact this; including being forced to pay child support if having a child from said casual encounters.
I mean if imprisoning men or even killing them hasn't stopped them hankering and chasing after casual sex, I seriously doubt if asking them to pay child support will.
The pivotal people here are the women. What is stopping them??? That's the question??? I guarantee you that they are still having casual sex with men, but I bet they are just using better birth control.
Thus the question is really what is it about stricter enforcement of child support collection that is driving these potential single mothers to take more care when having casual sex....and I bet if we honestly researched it, that it's related to legal issues like custody.
Anyway, I was more interested in what you said regarding feminism going 'back to a more moral sexual stance between men and women'? Or something like that? Where have you read or hear anything related to this??? Or what leads you to believe it???
"Of course, lots of men are driven by hormones to either ignore the risks or try to hedge them. The sexual revolution has given them access to a lot of sexually available women, but they must now deal with the pitfalls. This ties into the male BC pill or contraceptive which would be far more revolutionary than abortion rights since men wouldn't be bluffing: They really wouldn't want to have children from casual sex."
Then let's see how far our population numbers drop before the government steps into this too. As let's face it, if women waited for men to be ready to have kids we would have probably gone extinct somewhere around the time of the Romans.
Actually the Roman DID go extinct, they were overrun by the Germanic tribes...
Probably a large portion of our population is related to those 'whooopies' where women finally just get tired of waiting and take matters into their own hands.
So make up your mind already! Do you want to deeply examine a simple correlation before drawing a conclusion EITHER way, or do you want to go randomly with your correlation?
I'm reminded of Robert Klien standup routine where he laughs at the old Hi-C commercials where the Osmands brag that Hi-C has "10% fruit juice for that taste you love!" "What's the other 90 percent!", he screams, "Paint thinner?!?!"
In other words, even if we don't consider all the other factors both of us have mentioned, it doesn't change the fact that there's still 80% of these women out there having out-of-wedlock children and usually insisting upon child-support. Yes?
In answer to your point that men are horny enough to seek sex even if they jump off a cliff: This is often true but not necessarily for all men at all times. Pornography allows men to masturbate (sorry for this visual, but it's true.) We live in a different time than 30 years ago when most men only had access to porn from a few soft magazines at the newsstand or dirty movie theaters. It's a Billion dollar business. SOMEONE is using all that stuff to satisfy their sex urges.
Next, I'll elaborate on my point that the system relies upon such men being stupid enough to have casual unprotected sex AND intelligent enough to make a good living: Child-support enforcement hasn't increased income in recent years but has rather consumed it in the cost of the enforcement agencies themselves and even prison costs as such men just stop paying altogether. It's an ugly statistic that the mainstream media AND the feminists don't want getting out but is aggressively reported by MRA's who just gather up regular government statistics.
There are suckers out there, but as you and I both know, it's a matter of being in the right place at the right time for such women. If they sleep with some guy at a bar, it's possible he may have a good income AND not use a condom, but can she rely upon both of these being the case AT THE SAME TIME when SHE needs it?
Sure, these women can still have sex but maybe they're having it with men who are broke and now they're using birth control precisely because they realize that there's no money to be had. Also, I think I've seen studies that sexual promiscuity in these women have been going downhill as of late as men have wised up. I know from my own social circle of co-workers and friends that young men aren't the slutty dogs they used to be. They still enjoy sex, but they're a lot more saavy. (This is good news. I don't think these men are bad, they're just more smart. They're not likely to buy into the "just let her worry about birth control" mentality or try to get laid at any cost.)
I don't think feminists are going back to a more "moral" stance (since they're totally morally bankrupt man, society AND child hating materialists) but rather to puritanical sexless mores because the sex is with, well, men and men enjoy that. :-) In the old days 20 years ago, it was right wingers who were labeled as prudes who freaked out over a woman wearing a mini-skirt but today it's feminists who insist that workplaces be sexually sterile and men get busted for telling women they are pretty.
The reason is that they want to both harm heterosexual femininity (and push as many into lesbianism) AND to bash men for a profit. This is what's causing a mainstream "feminist" backlash: The "double dipper" career women who thought they could flirt and get stuff from men AND get a big fat paycheck are beginning to join up with the MRAs.
Even as birthrates drop, note that it only tends to drop ironically with white collar mainstream feminist types. "Red state" women and immigrants including Muslims and Latinos are having plenty of kids. I laughed when French leftists were trying to do something about it with more government benefits which would just even more burden their leftist native workplace and spur up immigrant birthrates. Can you say "digging deeper?"
Men have long been willing to commit to marriage with women under decent conditions. Women REALLY had it best in the 50's and blew it. Life wasn't perfect, but it was as close as possible for them. I know plenty of working class men, including my family, who happily married and had kids. What do you think of them?
The question of why the Romans "went extinct" has literally filled libraries. I want to fry some other, more practical, fish.
In conclusion, when you talk of women taking matters into their own hands, that's NOT the best way to try to portray motherhood that you claim is getting a bad rap. Yeah, why can't society seem to admire women who have bastard children out of wedlock and then argue for state benefits or track down deadbeat dads lest the child suffer in her care? Why isn't she getting humanitarian awards? Well, duh!
There are ways to "take matters into her own hands" that don't involve doing something so reprehensable including being more assertive and proactive about meeting breadwinning (and decent) men. One of the things that annoyed me the most about American women was how incredibly passive they can be. Foreign women seem more open in a manner that American women would refer to as "desperate" (and I don't just mean Eastern European women either. Even "normal" western european women are more "easy" when it comes to starting a normal relationship.
Well that was a depressing post not even counting the NYMAMA wise crack.
Listening to you, everyone in western civilization might as well just collectively join hands and jump off the nearest bridge.
Sorry about the "wisecrack". It's more a matter of me just being awful with names. (In Polish, people say "mama" not, "mom") Nothing personal.
"Depressing?" Surprisingly, I'm accused by other MRA's of being overly optimistic. I see "red state" conservative men and women having tons of kids while the leftist/communists die out as their cities are taken over by immigrants. I don't know how the Roman empire fell, but it's becoming rapidly apparent how modern leftism is collapsing.
The situation is admitantly depressing just as post perostroika Russia was depressing but that's because it was a transitionary period. Since leftism had very little to offer me to begin with, I'm obviously not crying a river over the turn of events even as I acknowledge that there's a lot of human suffering created by the situation.
For most people who are aware of events, I think that they are coping reasonably well: Women who really value marriage, more than social conventions or games they've been taught by the culture, ultimately find men and families just as men ultimately find such women. It's difficult, but every generation has it's challenges.
I'm sure throughout most of history people have been tempted to jump off a bridge, yes?
It's depressing because you are telling me that western civilization is going to be overrun by barbarians who are going to take over our nations in a generation or two.
This will not happen via invasion but through sheer inertia; as we die out from having too few kids.
With the fall of communism, came new hope for people as basically the 'heroes' of the Cold War won a major victory and democracy, capitalism, all sorts of freedoms were now available to people.
There was hope in other words of a better world for most of the people in those countries...
Now however you appear to be telling me that religious fundamentalists, either Pat Robertson or Osama bin Laudin will be in charge of western civilization in the future...
So some of the same guys who were barbaric enough to drive three planes into the World Trade Center killing thousands of innocent people and who regularly chop off each others heads and hands for relatively minor offenses are now in line as the heirs apparent to centuries of our blood, sweat and work that went into building this great civilization...
I'd sooner return this place to the Indians before I let those assholes have it...
This kind of brings to mind the "Capital One" barbarians, doesn't it?
As I said, I don't see everyone not having kids. Times are tough, but strong spirited people will find ways to get through them. I look back at the worst times of the cold war and WWII and WWI and think it's amazing that people could function, don't you?
What's wrong with Pat Robertson? I disagree with much of what he has to say too but largely view Christian communities as peaceful and economic prosperous places to live. But yes, there is a showdown coming for a variety of cultural elements that will over-shadow (pardon the ugly pun) gender squabbles and most of them will tend to push society in a conservative direction.
Do you think this is a bad thing?
I'm curious, NYMOM, what is your view of the 'perfect' or at least workable society? What do you see society, if all things go well, progressing towards? How much equality is enough? How much is too much?
In answer to your question: as ugly as it seems that Osamas may inherit the Earth, consider that we've been living in a self-loathing society for some time now. Is this any surprise? I know a number of middle class families where the women basically buy into leftist loathing of men as oppressors and women as entitled victims. Do you think such a society can be stable and survive outside pressures much less attacks?
The good news is that people who don't have this attitude will have children. That _is_ how things should work, yes? Isn't it good that the red staters are having more kids?
I find your Indian comment interesting. Ultimately, the land will belong to the people who decide they want to have children in the first place to have it AND are willing to make ALL the necessary sacrifices for that possibility, I don't view unwed single mothers as having that commitment. If they can barely get along with men to have children with them, what makes they think their children will ever have the tools to maintain and protect their society?
"I'm curious, NYMOM, what is your view of the 'perfect' or at least workable society? What do you see society, if all things go well, progressing towards? How much equality is enough? How much is too much?"
The 'perfect' society would be equality in all outcomes when people can and do make the equal contribution...
In essence, equal opportunity with no guarantee of equal result according to some quota...
For instance, if you go to medical school and fulfil all the requirements you become a doctor.
It would NOT be people having equal rights/results to something that they have contributed little or nothing of their own to...such as being allowed extra points on a test so you could pass and become a doctor in order to have enough women in medicine.
Same thing regarding children.
Thus, women should ALWAYS be the custodian of their children, as they unequivocally make the larger investment in their existence. It's a natural law and right that should be automatic and is the case in MOST other societies with the exception of Western societies where our men have obviously made themselves mentally ill with jealousy over women's role as the givers of life.
IF a mother wishes to voluntarily assign that right to others, such as when a young girl gives her child up to adoption or voluntarily gives up custody, or is found abusive or negligent, that's one thing. But for a court, some group of unknown individuals to be given the right to decide someone else is more suited to have custody of her child then a child's mother is monstrous. That should be a human rights violation. I don't think we should even recognize the rights of courts to do this...
It's an abomination really and will be seen as such when people look back on this period in our history where millions of mothers have lost custody of their children..
An unnatural event, evil really aided and abetted by both MRAs and gender neutral feminist who encourage it. Thus I could NEVER really be involved in anything that included any of you within it such as a group or something...as MRAs and gender neutral feminists support of this puts them hand in glove in petpetuating a great evil against mothers and their children.
Sorry there is no nice way to say this.