Recidiva wrote...
TSamee wrote...
Ah, cool, thanks for clarifying. The second I read the posts I assumed that people would capitalise on the welfare as an excuse to remain unemployed, but I wanted to know if women did this out of desperation (bad education, poor family, can't bring up child, etc.) or out of laziness. Hmmm... Though I hate the whole "welfare queen" mentality with every fibre of my soul, I think it's unfair on the child if their mother's income (which, let's hope, feeds and clothes them) is cut purely because the father says so. For all we know, the father could wish the child had never been born, and the mother could just see the kid as a paycheck. It's a sad existence, but it could be made much worse if uncaring fathers could simply cut they kids' economic lifeline on a whim.
The moderate solution I see:
If the father chooses to cut the mother's income, a reason must be provided, and the mother needs to be evidently capable of supporting herself. If deemed incapable, and the father is incapable of providing the monthly income, she should be put on government welfare or left with a consenting relative (sorry, the hypercapitalist "go out and die" mentality annoys me too), and the child will either also be left with said relatives, or brought up as an orphan. It is sad, I know, but growing up with a cold, calculating mum and a dad who just doesn't give a **** can't be nice either.'
This is probably packed with flaws, but I haven't given it much thought, it's as close as I can get realistically to what seems right.
I'm just trying to equalize the law to some state that is less imbalanced than it is now. I do believe that a woman should have the right to decide what happens, because of all the social and medical reasons inherent in bearing a child.
But if I believe this is true, it is a deeply and inherently imbalanced situation to thrust upon men, therefore they deserve and should get some level of equality and control.
I don't want children to suffer, but I believe they are doing so under the law as it is now, because of the inequality and because it's being exploited.
I will have to rely on other social programs to attempt to help a baby thrive once it's brought into the world. But I can't think that allowing men to be forced into financial slavery is the answer.
I definitely see where you're coming from, and I agree fully in terms of principle and morals. But, to realistically achieve this, the government is going to have to get a wee bit more socialist in their values. Not as much as places like France, Finland, etc. (a French friend of mine once said his aunt was living off welfare, purely because it was generally tough to get a job that paid that well in France), but programs should be put in place to, for example, provide education, shelter, food, etc, for a single mother with a child, or a child that's been willingly orphaned by both parents.
I understand the hypercapitalist mentality. I get why it's made the US so great over the years. Through a purely capitalist system, you can make money freely, without social constraints. It can, for example let the owner of a small business rise to make millions (very occasionally). But what about the people he employs, the business rivals he destroys and consumes, and the unemployed people he's left behind on the way? Well, in a purely capitalist society, the answer is simple: "Get out of here. Go far, far away. And die."
That's why systems must be set up that provide incentive to work hard (promotions, bonuses, the prospect of expanding your business, etc.). Systems must exist where the small-time businessman can still rise to make his millions. But social systems must be put in place as a safety net for those who are left behind on his journey to greatness.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
