By J. DeVoy
In honor of filing my taxes, here’s some information about the tax benefits that men, families and child-free women won’t be receiving this season. From Butterfly Squash:
- “Head of Household” is the filing status used by most single parents. They contribute the least to income taxes. The most are contributed by single males, followed by married couples, and then single females. Normally, married couples would pay the most, except that so many of them are homeowners and therefore eligible for the despicable mortgage interest credit.
- WIC is only for women.
- The child care tax credit is used more often by single parents than by married couples.
- Single mothers are the group most likely to receive free or subsidized health care, child care, and preschool (including the popular but worthless Head Start program).
- Single parents often receive subsidized housing and utilities.
- The vast majority of TANF (welfare) and Food Stamp recipients are single parents.
- Single parents benefit disproportionately from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The median income for single mothers ($31,818) was under the lowest bracket, and that of single fathers ($47,078) was over the highest bracket.
That means that while the majority of single mothers qualify for these and other income transfers, the overwhelming majority of single fathers and married couples do not qualify for them.
To recap, programs to help “working families” disproportionately benefit single mothers, though they theoretically exist for the benefit of all. While exceptions exist – plenty of single mothers do well for themselves and their children, and single motherhood is becoming a trend among affluent, autonomous women – the majority of never-married mothers do not fall into this category. Research shows that single mothers (distinct from divorced mothers, who are much less likely to ever live in poverty) and their children have, on average, worse outcomes than their peers in intact households.
Solution: Don’t pull the ladder up or rug out from under those who need these benefits, but start structuring them differently. Have the child tax credit increase for married couples, and scale upward as household and/or individual income increases. Make it a significant enough motivator for well-off, presumably intelligent people to have children. This also creates a stronger incentive for parents to marry, but will at least increase the benefits awarded to single mothers who earn more and are most likely to be capable parents.
By Email
By RSS Feed
The Legal Satyricon 
A few thoughts…
1. You imply that tax treatment constitutes a incentive for people to make family planning choices; how so, and is there any credible research to support that proposition (other than for the uber wealthy)?
2. The statistics you cite (even if credible), point to more than one possible conclusion (like that a disproportionate number of poor women are single parents), and its by no means most logical to conclude that tax treatment provides an incentive for women to take on the arduous task of raising children alone; in any case, assuming tax incentives have any effect at all, couldn’t the argument be made that a tax incentive on men penalizing them for not supporting their children be just as, if not more, logical?
3. You seems to come perilously close to making the eugenic argument that the government should provide economic incentives for the wealthy and well educated to breed, while using the tax system to at the same time discourage the poor and less educated from breeding. Is this what you mean to imply?
You seems to come perilously close to making the eugenic argument that the government should provide economic incentives for the wealthy and well educated to breed, while using the tax system to at the same time discourage the poor and less educated from breeding. Is this what you mean to imply?
If so… I must say that I somewhat agree with the notion that the government ought to offer eugenic-minded tax incentives. I don’t think I would agree that they should be economically based. However, I do strongly support forced sterilization. And, I see no reason that more productive members of society should not be encouraged to breed more – while those who produce nothing should be discouraged from breeding.
How to do it … that’s a plan that I have not yet completely developed, but I am working on it.
We figured out how to do it long ago, then the feds came to Utah and ruined it for everyone.
The inherent problem with your position (and most eugenic arguments) is that such incentives only achieve their desired effect if the behavior you’re trying to incentivize – being “productive” in this case – actually displays a high degree of heritability, either through biology or culture.
It may well be, for example, that having more children tends to decrease a person’s productivity, thereby making it something of an anti-heritable trait. Or productive people may tend to have unproductive children (think Paris Hilton). And that’s not even getting into the problem of how you’re going to define “unproductive” (and whether that definition will come to be synonymous with “poor”).
By and large the degree of heritability of high-level traits is still not well-understood, and such policy would be downright dumb to implement without a whole lot more science to back it up.
Um, you support forced sterilization? Really? Because, that’s both horrifying and really, really disappointing.
To the idea that the government should be making eugenic incentives… are you fucking kidding me? Our government? Any government? You don’t want to trust the government to regulate our porn, but you’re totally cool with the government having a eugenics program?
Please stop working on any kind of plan of that nature. Really, please.
I trust the government to regulate porn in reasonable ways: For example, I think that it would be fine for the government to ban non-consensual porn, and I haven’t complained about child porn being made illegal.
On the other hand, yes, I do think that a government-sponsored eugenics program would be wonderful.
Speaking as someone who was named after a eugenics proponent (it’s been less than 100 years since WWI – not that long), I’d just like to ask you if you really think that what the world really needs is more Jack Welchs or Antonin Scalias. We’re not gonna get as many Chomskys, Ghandis, Kuntslers or Kings as we will of folks I consider less than desirable.
I don’t disagree that there are some economic incentives that don’t help – though I won’t concede that economics is the primary – or even significant motivator in the lives of the people we’re so casually discussing. And I wholeheartedly agree that we really need to figure out how to do something more positive for them and our society than at present.
My opinion – eugenics as a slippery slope makes capital punishment comparatively appear as a level and infinite flat expanse.
Although -my mother made a good point one day years ago, when we were talking about sex and parenthood – if every little boy had a valve built in at birth that was turned off until he’d demonstrated sufficient responsibility to be a parent, we’d have a lot fewer problems as a society.
My objection remains – who decides? And using what criteria?
Which was decided upon by whom?
(I don’t trust none of you mutherfockers – and don’t get me started on anyone to the right of, well … somebody not remotely right.)
Is your historical perspective so short that you can’t see that not so long ago in this country, poor Italian immigrants (perhaps your forefathers?) were pretty universally derided as a menace upon society, who were less educated and prone to disproportionate procreation? Forced sterilization WAS an actively considered as a proper governmental activity, with disastrous results. In New England, Irish and Italian immigrants bore the brunt of these efforts, while in the south it was African Americans and others. It’s a SHAMEFUL aspect of our not-so-distant history.
Just because we got eugenics wrong in the past doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try it again.
I think that it could be relatively simple. We could simply require *everyone* to be on birth control. You need to apply to get off of it. If you haven’t proven yourself to be a fucking imbecile, you get to go off of it. I think it would be marvelous.
As long as i get to judge, I’m all for this.
A curious thought. What penalty if people–minors especially–genuinely mess up their meds and get preggo? What penalty for people who have kids in flagrant violation of the law? What if people leave the country to have kids to circumvent the law? Would the policy create a secret economy in black market midwife services?
And what is the legal status of a child born in defiance of this law? Is the child penalized before being born? If the child is a full citizen, then is there really a practical disincentive?
I think this policy gets rather complex looking forward. Although I’m not a fan, I think it’s worth inspecting and pushing the envelope. Interesting.
There are young conservatives who still believe Italian Americans are part of some inferior race. Go read Stormfront if you are not aware of this fact. It’s not improbable that someone they support politically would come to power and start the race purification programs that would include anyone who doesn’t fit their definition of “white”.
There are still progressive liberals who believe everyone is inferior and needs their guiding benevolent hand. Results are public housing projects that crushed the spirit and enslaved an entire minority in Chicago and other major cities, making the minority physically dependent on the progressive liberals largess. Who paid for that largess? Wait for it- the productive earnings taxed way from the middle class.
Fair enough, but you must admit that most of the bad effects that have come from liberal policies were unintended consequences of noble goals. Nobody set up housing projects, while rubbing their hands together, sniveling “yess…. now we shall enslave all of them! mwaaaa haaa haaaaa!” The housing crisis, ultimately, was caused by policies that forced the banks to be more open about lending to those who couldn’t otherwise own a home. Nobody really expected it to turn into the monster that it became.
Point? “Liberal” policies are often poorly thought through, or simply create consequences that are unexpected.
But, honestly, if you think that was the intent, or that it came from some ill-will, then you’re too dumb to read this blog. Go read Breitbart.
I believe that the things which horrify you about the idea of forced sterilization are probably the exact reasons why he said “How to do it … that’s a plan that I have not yet completely developed, but I am working on it.”
The idea of forced sterilization in certain situations does make sense (for example, Octomom). However the trick is ensuring that it is not used inappropriately in a horrific manner, such as you suggest when it was considered for Irish and Italian Immigrants and African-Americans. Therefore if a viable solution that prevents the misuses of it can be thought of, then what would be the problem with forced sterilization?
And even if you don’t use forced sterilization, incentives for the more intelligent and productive to breed while disincentives for the poor and less productive to breed, I’m all for that. The problem is right now the poor, stupid, and idiotic people are breeding much more rapidly than the intelligent, productive people. Therefore the average intelligence of people in the US (and around the world) is tanking. Incentives to fix this problem make perfect sense.
My only criticism of your point of view is whether economic class is a good indicator of whether someone should be allowed to breed. I don’t mind if the poor breed. I don’t even mind paying higher taxes so that poor kids don’t live like shit.
I think that we should be careful about equating money and/or formal education with breeding competence.
It’s almost like the April Fool’s day post would have been too obvious in April. Even if I concede all the arguments in the original post I can’t come to the same conclusions. Why is it in my interest or society’s interest for there to be “a significant enough motivator for well-off, presumably intelligent people to have children,” or a “stronger incentive for parents to marry?”
It should never be the government’s business whom (or if) a person decides to marry. I for sure don’t care if over-priviledged people with $10,000 dogs feel like they have enough incentive to reproduce.
There will be enough stupid kids in abstinence only education schools with after prom parties to keep the planet populated. We don’t need to start paying people to copulate. Wrong stimulus package.
As a single (childless) male, I often feel put upon, but in this case I know I have no desire to switch places with a single mother, so I don’t really see women going to that path for the social programs. Little Stephanie isn’t squeezing one out because she’ll qualify for WIC and Head of Household status, and if she is, more power to her.
I feel infinitely more screwed by the Martha Stewarts of this world that get multi-million dollar retention bonuses (where the taxes are paid by the company), to stay at the company she founded. Since when has it been OK for a publicly traded company to pay felons that kind of money?
If I were to make a list of “the top 10 things that screw me over on a daily basis and really piss me off,” single moms wouldn’t even make the list. When the revolution comes it’s not the single moms I want to see up against the wall.
When the revolution comes it’s not the single moms I want to see up against the wall
I like that.
But, I think we ought to read Jay’s piece carefully. I don’t think that he’s saying that single moms are a problem. (and if he is, then maybe I deserve a low reading comprehension grade). I think that he’s simply making an economic point, not a value judgment.
Christopher makes great points, and I second all of that.
As for why the government shouldn’t be in the business of forced sterilization or other types eugenics programs…where to begin?
I won’t spell out the obvious arguments… the slippery slope who gets to decide problem, which is no joke (as I’m sure there’s more than one government official out there who’d be happy to sterilize pornographers and other “deviants”… and their lawyers).
Because what really, truly pisses me off about this kind of argument is that it’s lazy, adolescent intellectualism. It’s a major fucking cop out. If you boil it down, the argument is: there are people who are “less productive” (by what standard, one might ask?), either as a result of genetic defect or as a result of social misfortune, and rather than dealing with those people, let’s just make sure they don’t reproduce so that in a generation, we won’t have to deal with them.
In terms of population control — over and over again, it becomes clear that the best, most effective means of population control is raising the level of education and standards of living. But, that’s hard work. So instead, you want to just sterilize those that you (or, someone else, if you decide to slough off that responsibility as well) deems are not worthy or that you’re too lazy to think about helping. It’s a cheap, and lazy, and embarrassing position to take.
In terms of “desirable procreation” policies…in addition to what Christopher said, and again putting aside the quite real genocidal slippery slope problem… it assumes that there are fixed or absolute definitions of what is or is not a desirable characteristic.
Now, assuming that you (Marc or Jay) believe that you belong to that group of individuals with such desirable characteristics that you should be permitted to procreate (affluence, education, etc.)… I guess I’m wondering now if I’d agree. Others may be lazy in terms of work ethic or “productivity,” but as we’ve learned many time and time again, a person with power who is a lazy intellectual and a lazy problem solver can do far more damage in a far shorter time than someone who simply takes advantage of public benefits or tax breaks.
I think that if you read my comments above, you’ll see that I specifically rejected the notion of economic class or formal education as indicators of breeding competence. I also said that I don’t mind paying higher taxes to support poor kids (and single moms for that matter).
So… I think that you might be misunderstanding my point as saying “lets sterilize everyone in the slums.” That’s not what I’m saying. Nor am I saying “lets sterilize everyone on public assistance” — because I don’t go for that either.
What I am saying is that some people shouldn’t breed. And, “the government” is, at least in theory, all of us getting together for a common good. So, the government requires us to get polio shots when we’re little. Why? So that polio won’t run rampant through the population. So if the government can mandate an injection so that you won’t get a disease, why shouldn’t the government be able to mandate an injection so that we can’t lop off the bottom 5% of the genetic pile?
I understand and respect the egalitarian nobility in your point of view. However, I don’t see anything wrong with exploring the idea of pruning the tree.
However, I don’t see anything wrong with exploring the idea of pruning the tree.
That’s among the things that really bothers me.
I get that you said you didn’t want to do it on class or race lines. But, so what? So, you’re going to come up with some other measure by which those in power (or, power of the moment) can deprive those without power of basic rights and liberties?
Fine, who do we start with?
Who do we start with… good question.
I would actually like to start an entire new portion of the US code. Flunky offenses.
First degree flunkiedom is otherwise known as abuse of authoritah. Second degree flunkiedom is just plain old flunkiedom.
Abuse of authoritah is when a cop or other person granted authority by the state knowingly and intentionally misuses that authority. That should result in permanent sterilization. So, a prosecutor who knowingly locks up an innocent man, he gets snipped.
Flunkiedom is when someone does essentially the same thing, but not intentionally — just out of sheer stupidity. So, there would be a LOT of sterile TSA agents once I am in charge.
Fine, Who do we start with?
How about those convicted of Rape of a child, Incest,1st degree Rape, pedophiles, etc. Eugenics might act as a deterrent to such behaviors.
Either way it will never work. I believe that China currently has a cap on children and look what that has accomplished…
I’m sure it would be just as effective a deterrent for criminals as the death penalty.
And not only has it failed in China, but also India, the Czech Republic, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden and Germany (as part of its overall genetic cleansing program), and every country that’s tried it has not only abandoned it, but also condemned the practice as a crime against humanity, and in some cases, criminally penalized those who carried out the sterilizations. The practice continues in a number of countries in Africa, with widespread world condemnation as well. It’s also been used as a way to keep slave labor docile in many countries (see, Peru, Romania, and the Soviet Union).
In the United States, not only was there widespread use of the policy in the South, involving almost exclusively women of color, but by many accounts its still done in Puerto Rico, where doctors under the guise of giving “family planning” advice sterilize poor women without their knowledge following the birth of a child.
I’ve been silent until now, but it hasn’t necessarily failed from an economic standpoint in China. It’s overtly eugenic – Hong Kong and other areas dominated by people with high IQ are exempt from the one-child policy, as are party ministers who risk various punishments breaking the rules. According to the CIA factbook, China’s population growth rate is half of India’s, despite having comparable populations (a disparity of less than 200 million isn’t that huge when we’re talking about populations of 1.3+ and 1.1+ billion). This limits the state’s liability for social services and other entitlements.
I agree that it’s an abhorrent policy and one I wouldn’t submit to, but it does have its reasons and upsides. I’ve been researching it for an article I’ve been writing which likely will never be published for the reasons you cite.
It’s hard to know though, isn’t it, whether its eugenics that’s responsible for China’s plateauing population growth rate, or the steadily increasing standard of living, access to education, including family planning and birth control education?
I think intelligent people should have kids. But, I would not agree with the general proposition that people with high IQ scores are always, or even necessarily, “intelligent.” And, therein lies the rub.
Or, for that matter, that people deemed “intelligent” necessarily make good parents.
Whatever the cause, it’s avoiding the inevitable human catastrophe we’ll see in India over our lives. Virtually identical to China in terms of population, yet with annual GDP about a quarter of China’s and double the annual population growth rate. Unless India’s annual GDP growth increases by factors of two – unlikely – that country’s facing some serious trouble.
I agree that high IQ isn’t sufficient for economic success. PhD candidates, who spend their 20s and sometimes their whole lives in penury, are a good example. I think IQ loses its value as a predictor for economic success around 110, although the observable differences in IQ for daily functions probably don’t disappear until around 120. After the 110 mark, luck and Big 5 personality traits matter more in terms of economic success. But, the importance of IQ research by Linda Gottfredson et al is that it shows low IQ to be far more correlated with social pathologies than high IQ. There are other factors at play, such as the inverse relationship between IQ and testosterone, but for whatever reason, all research has shown that low IQ is correlated with social pathologies and negative life outcomes. Moreover, while there is debate over what role nurture plays in the formation and solidification of IQ, almost everyone will admit that genetics has some role in determining a person’s IQ. Anticipated research seems to indicate that genes will play more of a role than anticipated, and more than some have been willing to admit. http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14742737
Just because you don’t know doesn’t mean it isn’t known. Volume is not substitute for substance.
You asked for a starting point Ms. Christensen and the Utilitarian in me believes that this would be an effective deterrent in the criminal justice system.
The thought of castration is a more powerful deterrent in men than death. The finality of death is something rarely able to be grasped, however living ones life without the ability to reproduce/copulate would substantially deter sex-crimes.
I guess sarcasm does not translate well over the internet with my reference to China.
Deviant/Violent Sexual Criminals should lose the ability to reproduce.
That is my $.02
Re WIC is only for women. Actually, two parent families are also eligible for WIC benefits if they are income-qualified.
The statement “WIC is for women” is not entirely correct. “WIC is for pregnant and nursing women” would be precisely correct. A pregnant or nursing mother’s nutritional needs are considered, along with those of any children in the family. The woman must be pregnant, up to six weeks post partum or breastfeeding for her needs to be considered in the grant. That’s because she needs to eat more during those times to accomodate the needs of the fetus/baby who she is playing host to. You do know this, right?
As soon as you gentlemen are able to incubate a fetus and/or breastfeed a newborn, you can start advocating for equal WIC rights for low income fathers. But until then…
So hows life going for the “Fighting Future Fishwives of Gloucester High School”? Is single mommydom all you stupid little sluts hoped it would be?
Just so the poor men don’t feel left out…make sure your forced sterlization program starts with them…afterall they can procreate at a much, much faster rate than women…and for longer.
The problem isn’t single female parents who don’t make enough money. The problem is men who prey upon them…er…kinda like you. :)
Makes sense to me.
Back to social programs to support children and the fairness thereof, a number of European countries pay families according to the number of children. These payments are often over $150 per month per child and are often not dependent upon family income.
I have been thinking about this for a long time–obviously it has taken over two months for me to respond However, the statistics offered are laughable and the analysis proffered is insufficient at best. Luckily, the numbers are transparent and provide the reader with the analysis lacking from the author—the fact remains: Women on average make less money then men. Ding Ding Ding–we have a winner. Now if anyone even responds to this , do not get you undergarments in a knot, I have some statistics in front of me that suggest the wage gap is decreasing and I believe that, however for the time being such a decrease does not level the playing field. Hence,if one is to look at single mothers as paying the least into the tax system and REAPING all the WONDERFUL benefits –then it necessitates that there be an analysis and explanation of why women on average make less than men and if I hear some excuse other than patriarchy I assure you I will vomit. Also please save your time and don’t offer me a welfare queen myth–I’m pretty sure that most little girls don’t say “when I grow up I want to be a single mother so I can get a tax break and WIC). I recommend looking at men(not all men because obviously there are plenty of respectable fathers and partners)–Yet, I would be willing to wager that MOST mothers would prefer to have a partner and as someone who much to her dismay is about to cash in her winning WIC lottery ticket I assure you that I am not the only person who would prefer to have a joint income(not to mention the other perks) vs. my meager two job earnings subsidized by law school loans. Until you are in someone’s actual shoes(sorry for the cliche) do not judge because apparently it is far more easy to uncomplicate a stranger’s situation than to factor in all actual and plausible factors…Oh and one more thing single fathers much like single mother are eligible for their child to receive WIC until the age of 5— the only time a mother gets WIC is when she is pregnant–and lucky her what a picnic being pregnant is and WHOA! that $10 a month towards fruit is life altering… Poor poor men–perhaps if people in general had accountability for their responsibilities such an argument would be moot–until then…
then it necessitates that there be an analysis and explanation of why women on average make less than men and if I hear some excuse other than patriarchy I assure you I will vomit.
Possibly that women choose more stable, lower-paying careers (e.g. nurse, doctor) than men (e.g. investment banking, biglaw, consulting). If we’re accounting for same-job wage disparities, there’s the issue of pregnancy and part-time workers skewing women’s wages lower.
Yet, I would be willing to wager that MOST mothers would prefer to have a partner and as someone who much to her dismay is about to cash in her winning WIC lottery ticket I assure you that I am not the only person who would prefer to have a joint income(not to mention the other perks) vs. my meager two job earnings subsidized by law school loans.
In theory and practice, it should be easier for women to find a partner than men. Women are the sex selectors, and there are always bidders on the market. Those bidders’ desirability is an open question, though it is easier, in my experience, for women to date/marry up in terms of looks, socioeconomic status, etc.
Oh and one more thing single fathers much like single mother are eligible for their child to receive WIC until the age of 5
Not a very convincing argument: There are factors more single mothers than single fathers. This is like telling me that we go out of our way to over-subsidize unicorns.
if people in general had accountability for their responsibilities such an argument would be moot–until then…
I agree. Unfortunately, the law is that only women get to decide whether to keep or abort a baby. If men had a similar option, such as unilaterally (and legally, without becoming a deadbeat dad) cutting off their economic responsibilities to an unwanted child, it would avoid many problems.
While I do agree with most of your comment, this part gave me pause: “women on average make less than men and if I hear some excuse other than patriarchy I assure you I will vomit. ”
Then vomit away.
I hear my fair share of whining about this in the legal field — women who think that someone who shows up to work for five years, then decides to take 6 months off to have a kid, then decides to leave work “early” (define “early” in the legal profession), for the next four years to take care of her kid, is entitled to the same salary as the guy who put in twice the hours since she traipsed off to the delivery room.
I am not saying that she shouldn’t have made those choices. Au contraire. I think that those choices are good ones. But, lets get real… If Billy bills 2500 collectable hours and Sally bills 2500 collectable hours, Billy ain’t making more than Sally. If Billy works at the firm for 10 years and Sally works at the firm for 10 years, they don’t necessarily deserve the same coin — since their relative contributions to the firm are not equal.
Marc, that might make sense as a general proposition if child bearing were the only reason for the disparity in wages between women and men — and frankly, if we were just talking about the difference between lawyer salaries, then I’d say let’s just let the lawyer’s work that out in their own firms.
But, the difference in the wage levels between men and women relate to many, many other factors than just who’s having the children. It’s bizarrely naieve to think otherwise. Now, you may want to argue that equal pay laws have done their job, and that salaries are on the whole becoming more equal. That’s an argument some make, and there’s definitely evidence that things have gotten much much better over time.
But, the fact that pay disparities exist or have existed most certainly relates to cultural and economic biases, misogyny, and patriarchy in addition to who has the babies.
make that *than men– I thought I corrected my typos
Marc-
I am done vomiting now(just kidding). I agree and your point is articulate and well noted when applied to certain situations– I definitely don’t think that someone who works the 80 hour weeks vs. someone who doesn’t should not be rewarded accordingly as a result of gender bias. Conversely,that does not excuse covert reasoning that women all want to “traipse” off to delivery rooms eventually as a reason against promoting them as seen in many situations and all in all it is a shady situation anyway one looks at it. Based on the decline of Title VII suits, I think things are changing and unfortunately I think some of these arguments lose merit because comparing biological potentials is the equivalent of comparing dogs and cats. Anyways, my overall point is, that single fathers are eligible for every program that a single mother is–the fact that there are more single mothers than fathers is far more complex an issue than whether or not the woman had an abortion. Not all single mothers started off that way…And J, your suggestion is also well taken about the unilateral cut off. Unfortunately, I don;t know how to reconcile with this because anyway I look at it, it is problematic. In the sense that many men would just opt to back out(why wouldn’t they, especially in casual situations)and if I understand correctly even if a woman chooses not to go after a man for support that on any given day that man can request a paternity test and seek visitation or custodial rights. It is a clusterfuck–nothing more nothing less and it isn’t as easy as abortion or not–there is always the potential for repercussions with any decision we make irrespective of how poorly it was executed.
I dig… I mean, I think that our debate is really tangential to your main point — so I won’t distract from it further.
if I understand correctly even if a woman chooses not to go after a man for support that on any given day that man can request a paternity test and seek visitation or custodial rights.
Surprisingly, no! Wisconsin is the only state I know of that allows fathers to dispute paternity at any time with a DNA test. In some states, the man has to prove fraud in order to establish (or remove) his paternal duties. This is virtually impossible, as it requires the mother to know that another man had impregnated her. See, e.g. reruns of Maury Povich. In other states, there is nothing a man can do once the birth certificate designating him as the father has been signed.
More men need to be aware of these laws.
Thats true. When I was clerking at the Supreme Court of Vermont, the Court dealt with a case where a guy found out that he was not the real dad after paying support for 5 years. The Court said “too bad, someone has to care for the kid… and if we balance the injustice of you paying for a kid that isn’t yours with the injustice of a kid not getting paid for, we side with the kid. Shouldn’t have fucked the skank, dude.”
It really is bullshit.
Yeah, that stinks.
I have read the article and comments with interest as an outsider from across the pond. It´s the age old use of an easy scapegoat for society’s ills. Lone parents, especially mothers, are an easy target. In the UK we have a lot of help for lone parents. Some people, who have never had to struggle to make ends meet, complain that it is unfair. There is a lot of negative press and scaremongering, stereotypes of the teenager deliberately getting herself pregnant to get state aid.
Firstly, even assuming that this is true, and all single mums do it deliberately, doesn’t this say something about our societies? We aspire to a ‘freemarket’, an american dream (yes, we aspire to this here in the UK too) where everyone can ‘make it’. Yet large parts of our communities feel excluded to such a point that they see no way of acheiving success. If girls are deliberately getting pregnant for this reason, doesn’t it show what a low sense of esteem and self worth they must have. Why not address THAT, rather than criticising. Another problem we have here in the UK is the appalling shortage of affordable rented accomodation. Most people on low incomes (working or on welfare) could never afford even the most modest of appartments. More and more young people are having to stay with parents into their 30s.
The other issue I have with this article is the idea that we should only allow ‘productive’ people to reproduce. What is ‘productive’? Someone who screws others for profit, who makes a mint solely for themselves while others slave away for a minimum wage? I disagree. I see the woman who works 2 or 3 jobs as a waitress or a cleaner for 50 hours a week as very productive. She’s just paid crap so that you can enjoy your coffee on the cheap. She might be bringing up her kids to go to college and pay for your pension when you retire. You should be thanking her! We NEED people who can work in unskilled jobs for low wages.
Finally as a lone parent I know that I would never have chosen this route voluntarily. It is HARD graft on your own. I tried my damnest to hold my relationship together, but it takes two. I have tried dating, and maybe, sometime a man might come along who I can rely on, but it’s not easy, despite being a woman!