Feminists angry that welfare no longer focuses 100% on women's needs: "Americans have viewed men as capable of caring for themselves ... women were always viewed as people to be cared for and protected."

jpflathead · 2013-12-26T16:07:53+00:00

That was shameful. She acknowledges men have traditionally been left out of these programs, doesn't say that's a horrible thing, and continues to dismiss them.

Then she begrudges that the marketing for aid, not the aid, just the marketing is directed towards children and not single mothers.

wtf doesn't even begin to describe this.

punxpunx54 · 2013-12-26T17:37:04+00:00

This is why I don't give money to the local United Way each year when my employer hosts them. All of the charities that they help out are geared solely to women and children. All of their homeless shelters and refuges do not allow men.

When I was growing up, one of my dads co-workers fell on some hard times. His wife kicked him and their son (who was 6 or 7 at the time... i dont remember exactly) out to make room for her new family. For a few months, he and his son floated around. They stayed with us for a week or so. His and my fathers employer hosted the United Way each year. Each year, nearly everyone donated something. So my dads co-worker thought that he could go ask for assistance at some of those charities. None of them would take them in. Some of them said that his son could stay if he signed over legal custody, but he could not.

He was turned away by the very charities that he and his co-workers helped to fund.

2013-12-26T16:42:42+00:00

Homeless men account for the vast majority of homeless. We can see here a massive bias in favor of women in society where they are the primary caregivers in child custody .. children they have made themselves and men who have no recourse except to work at whatever job they can get.. if they can get one. Female privilege at its finest. Men are throw away humans because they have no vagina and can't have children. Women have nothing to fear about being homeless as long as they have reproduced and that child needs to be cared for.

SporkTornado · 2013-12-26T18:28:17+00:00

"Perhaps it is because so many adult women, like men, now work in the labour force and are viewed as individuals who should take care of themselves."

so she is against treating men and woman the same? She seems upset that the government is now treating women the same way as they treat men.

turk1559 · 2013-12-26T17:48:38+00:00

"Empowering" Feminists using the victim card? Shocker.

5th_Law_of_Robotics · 2013-12-26T21:29:53+00:00

From the stories about food stamps, you’d think that only children, teenagers, the elderly and the disabled have gone hungry.

The words “women” or even “mothers” rarely appear.

Whereas the word "father" is used all the time. /s

Also, notice how women being treated like men (and not be given any particular sympathy when they're suffering) equates to a war on women? Feminists take note: if occasionally being forced to live like men feels so oppressive to women imagine what it's like to live that way all the time.

SJW_Scum · 2013-12-26T18:36:47+00:00

What I got from this article:

To be a feminist, ignore the sick, the elderly, the children, and the veterans. Instead only complain about how X negatively affects women, ignoring all nuances and complications that may hinder this article.

qoppaphi · 2013-12-26T19:20:30+00:00

I like how treating men and women equally now constitutes part of the there-aren't-enough-sarcasm-quotes-in-the-world-for-this "War on Women". Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the majority of homeless people male?

johnmarkley · 2013-12-27T01:17:39+00:00

That was the most blatant, shameless example of "how dare you treat women as if they were no better than men, you sexist monster!" I've seen in a while. And her whining about how poor able-bodied adult women are being robbed of their rightful place as the center of attention because people care more about poor children was absolutely repulsive.

2013-12-26T23:19:37+00:00

Wait! Is this feminists defending patriarchy?

Women viewed as weak, and needing protection? That's patriarchy you stupid cunts.

Electroverted · 2013-12-26T23:44:53+00:00

Feminism: Fighting for female equality and independence by defending unequal dependency systems

oneiorosgrip · 2013-12-26T17:53:55+00:00

Democrats defend the new debit card program, which can only be used to purchase food, as feeding needy Americans at a time of high unemployment and great poverty. Republicans, for their part, argue that the programme is rife with fraud, that its recipients (who are mostly single mothers) are lazy and shiftless, and that we must make drastic cuts to reduce government spending. Their most Dickensian argument is that if you feed the poor, they won’t want to work.

The two sides of the debate seem to have to argue on the basis of this either always being true, or never being true.

There is a significant portion of the SNAP-benefit recipient population that works, but still lives below the poverty level.

I spent 6 years (after having to move unexpectedly) supplementing my family's income by working at a convenience store. I had two coworkers who were on SNAP and other welfare benefits, including title-20, while working full-time. One was going to school full-time on top of her full-time work, and is now a nurse instead of a working-welfare recipient. The other is raising a severely disabled child, and probably will be a lifetime recipient. I also spent some time working and receiving benefits due to rapid changes in my family's income (very long, boring and irritating story). Rising above eligibility is a struggle; making it financially at the border of eligibility even more so.

There is also a significant portion of the SNAP-benefit recipient population that doesn't work, and doesn't use their benefits wisely. When my family had to use the system, I sat in the Job and Family Services office waiting for my interview and listened to other women work with case workers on keeping their child support income low enough to maintain eligibility for a range of benefits. One woman in particular was collecting from 4 "baby daddies." Her case worker actually calculated for her what she could collect from each one in order for her total added together to be worth collecting, but remain below the amount it took to get multiple welfare benefits.

The advice I was given by case workers in my county's Job and Family Services department was appalling. More than one woman there encouraged me to abandon my husband because I could get more welfare benefits that way. More than one showed me an unwelcoming attitude on sight, then changed her mind upon reading the ethnic part of my application, which though I've never lived as a minority or directly faced institutionalized discrimination because of the native american aspect of my heritage, apparently gave me some kind of special minority status in their eyes. And apparently, that made more difference in whether or not I belonged there than my income did - a thought with sickening implications regarding these people's attitude toward minorities.

It was very common for people from other neighborhoods with bigger convenience stores to get mad at us at the convenience store where I worked for not accepting their SNAP card. Though some convenience stores take SNAP, our store wasn't eligible to accept SNAP because we didn't carry sufficient groceries.

And it's not just significant because these people wanted to spend $4.00+ on a $2.50 gallon of milk when they could go a few blocks down the street to a real grocery. No, they wanted to spend their SNAP dollars on fast food items. Prepared sandwiches, roller grill food, fountain drinks, and specialty coffee are included in the list of things you can buy with that card. I saw people walk in past the sign that said "This store doesn't accept SNAP benefits," and prepare to spend as much on two hot dogs from the roller grill as it would cost to get a whole pack of them at the grocery a few blocks down the street. I've seen this at other stores; people approach the counter with one meal's worth of fast food, and spend enough to buy 3 days worth of groceries. And they were offended, not just put out, when we told them we couldn't accept the card. The sense of entitlement was appalling. It wasn't just "oh, that's inconvenient. I guess I'll go to the store" or even "hey, can someone give me a ride," but more of a how dare you attitude, directed not at the company, but at the cashiers... because we supposedly had control over the system and were just jerking them around. While the negative attitudes I've described by far don't represent everyone on food stamps, they most certainly do exist, and they are a problem. To ignore that is no better than to ignore the fact that the system exists because some people really are down on their luck and trying to get back up.

The dialogue on welfare benefits, work, single parents, gender, and ethnicity is vastly oversimplified by political pundits. Regardless of anything the recipients do or do not do, I think if anyone should be shamed over the system, it's the politicians who have spent the last half-century exploiting people's fears over it for political capital.

*Edit - I've got to add one more thing in reply to this paragraph:

But as the New York Times economiccolumnist Paul Krugman has repeatedly pointed out, welfare entitlements, including the food debit card, are not only good for families; they also good for the economy. People who receive such help spend the money immediately. Single mother hold down multiple jobs at minimum wages to keep their family together. The debit card allows them to go shopping and to buy needed groceries. Such entitlements boost spending and the economy, rather than depleting it.

That argument is the argument that cutting a foot from the bottom of a blanket and then sewing it to the top will make the blanket bigger, or dipping water from a bucket and then pouring it back in will fill the bucket. Every dime put into the welfare system is taken out of the economy. When welfare recipients spend money, they're spending what was earlier removed. The same is true for every dime spent maintaining the system - each one was earlier removed from the economy prior to being spent. What benefits and grows the economy is money spent in ways which create an increase in wealth; money which creates things that are worth money, leaving the economy with both the money and a product which has monetary value. Taking money out of those efforts by taxing those involved to pay for welfare programs doesn't build the economy. That is not where the value of a welfare program is, and selling the idea of welfare programs on that basis is dishonest.

Bartab · 2013-12-26T18:53:24+00:00

"Hi, I wanted equality now give me all that 'free' money reserved for me."

YumYum_Bottle_of_Rum · 2013-12-27T00:31:34+00:00

Awww is snowflake sad the word "women" is being left out of the discussion? Isn't that precisely what feminism has been fighting for? You know, the whole equality thing. If men are able to fend for themselves, I thought the idea that women were just as capable would be a sign of progress to feminists? Oh that's right... it's never been about equality. It's always been about special treatment.

arizonadave · 2013-12-27T00:54:09+00:00

"Perhaps it is because this is part of the Republican war on women’s reproductive freedom: a single mother with children is somehow guilty of bringing on her own poverty."

Well, yeah, of course she's responsible. She decided to have a child, and that's a huge financial commitment. She has the freedom to reproduce, but that doesn't mean she gets to avoid the consequences of her decision.

If I buy a Ferrari and lose my house six months later, guess who's responsible?

apathos_destroys · 2013-12-26T18:36:23+00:00

..........just......fuck.

I don't even know what to say anymore.

2013-12-26T21:33:55+00:00

Please please please tell me that was satire. I think my brain is broken if that wasn't the case

WasteAmez · 2013-12-26T22:39:43+00:00

"Single mothers, who are 85% of all single parents"

You know why that is? Because most of those women aren't smart enough to fuck men with integrity, and the ones that do aren't smart enough to keep said men around; even if said man WANTS contact with the children, these beleaguered victims frequently cut off all contact with the father. The reason they so completely cut the father out (in the cases the father wants continued contact and doesn't have major issues - which is fairly common) is because they're vindictive whores.

We so criticize pedophiles for the damage they do to the psyche of their victims, but completely ignore the much greater amount of damage a huge proportion of these poor, hard working single mothers do with their inept parenting.

You ask; how can they tell if a man will make a good father or not? Well, if his name is Tyrone, has less than a 10th grade education, and most of the value in his portfolio is Air Jordans - he's probably not good father material.

2013-12-27T07:21:31+00:00

Most of those mothers only need assistance because they willingly had a child they couldn't afford, that's why it's called an entitlement, rather than a safety net. The author talks about using EBT over the summer, the male students I know talk about summer jobs.

Could it be that women are the most likely to use it because they pick and choose when it comes to a job, even when in need? Or, in the case of the author, they expect society to fund their vacation?

To be sure, there are women who need that safety net, but with women making up the majority of the workforce these days, to also make up the majority of those receiving assistance is fairly telling.

Ivan_Fackoff · 2013-12-27T04:30:58+00:00

Sad but not surprising.

Pancakes1 · 2013-12-27T18:10:16+00:00

Honestly, does the word 'War' even have the same meaning anymore ?

Comments