Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How is that even relevant to the topic of discrimination between custodial fathers and custodial mothers in receiving government benefits?
This story is a about a teenager who got his girlfriend pregnant then went to jail for beating up her "boyfriend" after they split up. Now he cant find employment and is having trouble paying child support.
Apples and oranges. This is an entirely different topic.
How is that even relevant to the topic of discrimination between custodial fathers and custodial mothers in receiving government benefits?
This story is a about a teenager who got his girlfriend pregnant then went to jail for beating up her "boyfriend" after they split up. Now he cant find employment and is having trouble paying child support.
Apples and oranges. This is an entirely different topic.
It's not a story, it is an analysis of the topic that happens to include a story.
And you cut out the 3 relevant quotes from 3 experts that address precisely what we're discussing.
Based on decades-old stereotypes that single mothers are raising children alone and single dads are “deadbeats,” the majority of United States anti-poverty programs almost exclusively serve women and children, said Jacquelyn Boggess, co-director of the Center for Family Policy and Practice, a Wisconsin-based think tank that focuses on supporting low-income parents.
--
Historically, funding for both government and nonprofit programs to help men has been scarce, said Joy Moses, a senior policy analyst at the Center for American Progress. A recent survey from the Center for Family Policy and Practice shows the top two ways that nonprofit service providers connect with men is through parole and child support enforcement programs. “As a low-income man, you almost have to get in trouble to get help,” Moses said.
--
“Helping women and not men creates huge gender asymmetry, which makes it harder for couples to stay together,” said Harvard sociologist Kathryn Edin, author of Doing the Best I Can: Fatherhood in the Inner City. “Men can’t earn enough money to earn a place in the family. They become dispensable.”
It's not a story, it is an analysis of the topic that happens to include a story.
And you cut out the 3 relevant quotes from 3 experts that address precisely what we're discussing.
Based on decades-old stereotypes that single mothers are raising children alone and single dads are “deadbeats,” the majority of United States anti-poverty programs almost exclusively serve women and children, said Jacquelyn Boggess, co-director of the Center for Family Policy and Practice, a Wisconsin-based think tank that focuses on supporting low-income parents.
--
Historically, funding for both government and nonprofit programs to help men has been scarce, said Joy Moses, a senior policy analyst at the Center for American Progress. A recent survey from the Center for Family Policy and Practice shows the top two ways that nonprofit service providers connect with men is through parole and child support enforcement programs. “As a low-income man, you almost have to get in trouble to get help,” Moses said.
--
“Helping women and not men creates huge gender asymmetry, which makes it harder for couples to stay together,” said Harvard sociologist Kathryn Edin, author of Doing the Best I Can: Fatherhood in the Inner City. “Men can’t earn enough money to earn a place in the family. They become dispensable.”
#1. I think we have agreed that woman and children or custodial mothers are the majority so yes they are the majority in receiving government benefits. This dose not mean that custodial fathers are not receiving the same benefits.
#2. Again goes back to mothers are most often custodial. This does not mean are not receiving the same benefits. It means more men are non custodial parents and apparently are more likely to have criminal records.
#3.What is that saying? Well not that custodial fathers are not receiving the same benefits as custodial mothers.
Not denying fathers have their own set of issues in CS and custody but this is a different topic and does not relate to the OP's statement that women have much easier time acquiring welfare, section 8, habitat for humanity, and other social programs.
#1. I think we have agreed that woman and children or custodial mothers are the majority so yes they are the majority in receiving government benefits. This dose not mean that custodial fathers are not receiving the same benefits.
#2. Again goes back to mothers are most often custodial. This does not mean are not receiving the same benefits. It means more men are non custodial parents and apparently are more likely to have criminal records.
#3.What is that saying? Well not that custodial fathers are not receiving the same benefits as custodial mothers.
Not denying fathers have their own set of issues in CS and custody but this is a different topic and does not relate to the OP's statement that women have much easier time acquiring welfare, section 8, habitat for humanity, and other social programs.
Truth. There are problems, sometimes, with how men are treated in child custody issues, particularly when they are seeking child support from an absent mother, but eligibility for state assistance is NOT one of them.
The SJW movement talks about a wage gap but I would argue there's a huge responsibility gap, meaning that women will often get in less trouble or no trouble for things a man would be in serious trouble for. Do you think this is true, and if so should the SJWs be focusing on this as well?
Some examples would include bias towards women in courts during custody hearings, getting MUCH lighter prison sentences for the same crimes, much easier time acquiring welfare, section 8, habitat for humanity, and other social programs, and things of that sort.
Should there be truly equal rights with truly equal consequences to actions?
When I saw the thread title I got excited because I thought it was going to be about women demanding equal pay and status despite not being willing to take on equal responsibility with regards to gender roles - that there are still gender roles despite them demanding that they be deconstructed so that they can be anything they want to be: "Girls that code", "chicks with d cks", "Madam President", what have you.
But in a more serious note, they don't want to accept the physicality that actually ending gender roles would imply...they want only the pay and status that comes with glamorous or highly-paid white collar jobs. They don't want to be heavy equipment operators and stevedores and work on a scaffold or down in the sewers or on fishing boats or any of the other many dirty dangerous jobsites that men are relegated to by their sex and by "gender roles".
It seems to be a blatant shirking of the "equal responsibility" that accompanies petulant demands for "equal pay" and "equal treatment"...and nevermind that the "gender wage gap" has already been thoroughly debunked...women who do the same job, with the same experience and education, and who put in the same hours, do make the same as men.
When I saw the thread title I got excited because I thought it was going to be about women demanding equal pay and status despite not being willing to take on equal responsibility with regards to gender roles - that there are still gender roles despite them demanding that they be deconstructed so that they can be anything they want to be: "Girls that code", "chicks with d cks", "Madam President", what have you.
But in a more serious note, they don't want to accept the physicality that actually ending gender roles would imply...they want only the pay and status that comes with glamorous or highly-paid white collar jobs. They don't want to be heavy equipment operators and stevedores and work on a scaffold or down in the sewers or on fishing boats or any of the other many dirty dangerous jobsites that men are relegated to by their sex and by "gender roles".
It seems to be a blatant shirking of the "equal responsibility" that accompanies petulant demands for "equal pay" and "equal treatment"...
Women can still code and be President and do many of the traditional "male jobs". I don't think it is asking too much to not be barred from certain positions.
Yes some women do want to be equipment operators, etc. Not a lot but not a lot of men do either. And you don't see a lot of men vying for daycare worker, waitress, secretary, cashier, nurse, social worker or taking part time positions over full time.
Its not about having an obligation to work traditional male jobs, its about having the opportunity to do whatever job you want as long as you are qualified for the job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantompilot
and nevermind that the "gender wage gap" has already been thoroughly debunked...women who do the same job, with the same experience and education, and who put in the same hours, do make the same as men.
I agree with this. All things being equal I don't believe one gender is being paid less or given fewer benefits.
In reality, like actual written court procedure, the court looks at what is in the best interest of the child. Granting custodial custody to the person who has provided the vast majority of day to day care for the child is deemed in the best interest of the child.
Nothing could possibly be further from the truth. The court looks at gender. In my State, there are Judges that have presided for over 20 years and granted custody to Mom in EVERY contested case. Thats as blatant as it gets.
I never said sacrifice. Most men do not work outside in dirty, difficult and dangerous jobs with overtime. That's great the men you work with love their dirty, difficult and dangerous job and love overtime because they love their wives and children more than other men.
But reality is that it is women who leave their jobs to be SAHMs, it is women who lose hours because they take off to stay home with the kids when they are sick or when they have appointments and when school is out. These arrangements maybe mutual or one sided. They may be based on income or preference. Regardless, if the marriage ends in divorce the court is going to look at who has been the primary caregiver of the children. The majority of the time it is the mother whether she is a SAHM, works part time, or works full time but still does 95% of the parenting. The courts aren't giving custodial custody to the mother because she is a woman, its because she has been the primary caretaker.
Everyone wants to be a victim! Some of the same people who post of these type of threads complain about how women/others want to be victims when they do the same thing. It's ridiculous.
Well its single mothers with custodial custody that receive the benefits not just single mothers. Its having custody of the minor children that qualify one for benefits.
This is true. The women by themselves wouldn't qualify for benefits.
Also, still not sure how getting social welfare equals "responsibility."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
