"40 per cent of US women are the sole or primary breadwinners...most of these families are headed by single mothers" I wonder if "breadwinning" includes raking in child support.

SirSandGoblin · 2013-05-29T15:21:06+00:00

maybe you should find out if that is the case, or we could just claim it is and get angry over a hypothetical

oied · 2013-05-29T15:06:26+00:00

These “breadwinner moms” are made up of two very different groups: 5.1 million (37%) are married mothers who have a higher income than their husbands, and 8.6 million (63%) are single mothers.1

Of all households with children younger than 18, the share of married mothers who out-earn their husbands has gone up from 4% in 1960 to 15% in 2011. During the same period, the share of families led by a single mother (from 7% to 25%).

more single mothers = more women as the primary/sole breadwinners

Bobsutan · 2013-05-29T18:37:00+00:00

http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/29/news/economy/breadwinner-moms/?hpt=hp_t2

From the comments:

StanNJ

Ill translate this spin from CNN. If you remove single mothers from this deceptive article, then it would be 33% of 40% or roughly 13% of households women were the primary breadwinner.

And single mothers median income was $23,000/year. Congrats, you live in poverty.

Also this nice tidbit of info at the bottom of the article.

Single mothers are also less likely to have a college degree, tend to be younger and are more likely to be black or Hispanic, whereas the married moms tend to be older, disproportionally white and college educated.

Translation - most single moms are uneducated black or hispanic women living in poverty. This is the real story.

qronick · 2013-05-30T02:51:43+00:00

Why the fuck is this upvoted?

oneiorosgrip · 2013-05-29T20:33:14+00:00

Legal bias brought about by feminist activism contributed to making women the primary breadwinners of 2 households directly related to me. Mine, and my husband's ex's.

When my husband's ex left him, he was denied primary custody because the children were both under 7. In our area, in order for a father to get custody, he has to prove the mother unfit, not just prove that he is a fit parent. Despite being the children's primary caregiver (since his then-wife was rarely ever home) he was told he wasn't qualified to "replace" the position of mother.

Because the state is provided with incentive to collect child support, about a year after the couple's divorce, he was informed that Ohio legally mandated that support be collected through the state. Shortly after that went through, and the state began garnishing his check for support, he received notice that he was a year in arrears, not because he hadn't paid, and not because he couldn't prove it, but because the law stated that it didn't count as payment any more. All support he had paid the previous year did not count as support paid, and he was ordered by CSEA to pay it again. His requested hearing did not go well - having no funds for a lawyer, he had to depend on a state appointed attorney, who did not counter the CSEA's argument that all money previously paid was considered by state law to be "gifts" to the mother.

So, on top of his regular child support payment, he owed another full year's payment.

The state was already taking half of his gross income. The limit the state can take is 60%.

He was still making up that debt when we moved in together. In fact, by that time, it had begun to climb again, because the ex had quit her job and had two more children. Quitting her job raised his support significantly. Having two more children (not his) also raised his support. When she moved, and later began working again, her new job did not reduce his support proportionally to the way the loss of her old job had raised it. When we requested the same financial consideration for our son that she was given for her two children with her new husband, the CSEA argued on her behalf, and it took a year (and a hearing in front of a judge) to get that changed.

We looked at our situation, realized there was no way to work our way out of it by increasing his income, because if it went up, so would the debt, while our own impoverished financial situation would remain unchanged... so we decided that I'd be the household breadwinner, because she couldn't take my income. To that end, I worked 3 and sometimes 4 jobs to make ends meet during most of that time... and she still managed to get her hands on some of my earnings. In addition to periodically having to make a payment over and above the collected support in order to prevent the CS agent from opening a legal case against my husband (she regularly threatened,) the state confiscated part of my pay and told me it was given voluntarily.

Every year, the agent took our income tax refund - both his and mine. Every year, I received a notice that the CSEA wanted to confiscate my share of our joint tax refund, and every year, the case worker called to remind us that at any time, she could file a legal case against my husband and have him jailed. Every year, she sent me a paper to sign, saying that I was not coerced into turning over my refund. So basically, I had to agree that I was turning that money over uncoerced, or the lady who was coercing me would have my husband put in jail. When I pointed that out to her, her answer was priceless: "Well, she needs the money, because she has kids to raise."

My child didn't count as a child to her, because my husband and I were not divorced.

During most of their mutual children's youth, the resulting situation was that the ex had an income and a half, and I worked my ass off just to keep our heads above water, and sometimes it was impossible. She afforded a house with enough extra room in it that she adn her husband were able to take in and support his deadbeat jobless relatives... she had money for hair salon visits, designer clothing, newer vehicles, and family trips. We spent the entire time a paycheck or bad surprise away from the street. We juggled bills, scraped bottom, had utilities temporarily shut off, and made do with some very odd circumstances in order to survive.

Both she and I were considered the primary breadwinners of our families during that time (she, part of that time, and me, the whole time,) though only one of us actually went out and won the goddamned bread.

The stats may show that some women are more successful - but it also reflects cases like mine, involving one woman who was "breadwinner" because she was greedy, and the other due to having no other choice.

fluxBurns · 2013-05-30T02:16:41+00:00

Doesn't this make 60% of men sole or primary bread winner?

EvilPundit · 2013-05-29T14:12:16+00:00

That's an extremely good point. How many of these single mother "breadwinners" are getting their bread from welfare or "child support"?

Since men pay the most in taxes, and by a huge margin the most in "child support", it's quite possible that the money is coming from men.

The exception, of course, is women who work and the taxes they pay. But it's still men doing most of the heavy lifting.

Vandredd · 2013-05-30T00:03:57+00:00

Most criminals were raised by single mothers too.

Do we really want to get into this?

Bohica69 · 2013-05-29T15:31:45+00:00

Why, yes, yes it does. :)

oneiorosgrip · 2013-05-29T20:34:46+00:00

On a side note - you hit a nerve.

MRMRising · 2013-05-29T21:47:03+00:00

Nearly three-quarters of those surveyed said that the increase in working mothers made it more difficult for families to raise children.

Ladies, blame Feminism, there the ones that said; "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle".

MartialWay · 2013-05-29T22:43:35+00:00

If it's forced transfer payments, wouldn't "breadtakers" be a better term?

_Mclintock · 2013-05-29T17:10:43+00:00

If not child support, welfare.

Vandredd · 2013-05-29T20:52:45+00:00

Lets break this down. There are more single mothers which skew the numbers. Women completing college more than men, which change the numbers. The more interesting point in the article is that women lead households make more money. This make sense because if the woman is working, the man is also likely to be working, 2 incomes>one generally

I have seen some coverage of this that us pretty silly. The wage gap myth is back, with zero evidence. I am still waiting for someone to show me proof of women getting paid less to do the same job with the same company and the same qualifications, I think I will still be waiting for that one. (does not include commission jobs for obvious reasons.)

jsh1138 · 2013-05-29T18:08:00+00:00

i was wondering the other day what Obama care is going to mean for women whose only income is child support

assuming they dont have insurance, they have to pay a fine. if they dont pay the fine, they get their check garnished, if no garnishment, they go to jail

but is the government really going to garnish child support? or jail single moms? i'm not sure anyone has really thought this shit through yet

Title	"40 per cent of US women are the sole or primary breadwinners...most of these families are headed by single mothers" I wonder if "breadwinning" includes raking in child support.
Author	qronick
Upvotes	68
Comments	84
Date	May 29, 2013 2:04 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1f9o5r/40_per_cent_of_us_women_are_the_sole_or_primary/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/40-per-cent-of-us-women-are-the-sole-or-primary.1172619 https://theredarchive.com/post/1172619

Comments