Weather

Cloudy

63° F

Pollen 2

Air quality 56

| Traffic

Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > September > 04 > Entry

Out-of-wedlock births have to be discussed

By Jim Wooten | Tuesday, September 4, 2007, 06:56 AM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Analyze this, the first sentence of an account of a Michael Bloomberg speech to the National Press Club last week, and then take the quiz on why notable public opinion leaders are reluctant to weigh in on the sensitive question of fathers, marriage and child poverty:

“New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a divorced, billionaire dad, said Tuesday that unwed fathers increase poverty and the government should take steps to get them back with their families.”

A divorced, billionaire dad. Meaning what? A gratuitous insertion in a wire service account, it’s clearly intended to convey a message. But what? That because Bloomberg is divorced, he lacks moral authority to urge that tax laws be amended to entice the absentee male back into children’s lives? That because Bloomberg is rich, he lacks legitimacy to speak of poverty?

The gratuitous reference to his wealth and marital status — both matters unrelated to the issue he addressed or content of his remarks — are noteworthy in that they are warnings to public figures to avoid topics where they risk being accused of hypocrisy. Topics like the epidemic of births to unmarried women and the disadvantage and poverty that results.

Bloomberg wasn’t approaching the hot-button issue at the heart of the problem he addressed. He was, instead, proposing financial incentives to buy men back into their children’s lives, including “a substantial expansion and reform” of the earned income tax credit.

“Why should we expect young mothers to work and not young fathers?” he asked, a reference to the 1996 welfare reform law that, with the EITC, “led millions of people into the labor market, where they attained the dignity of work and a chance to rise out of poverty.” With that, he said, the welfare caseload in New York City had dropped by a third over the past five years.

“Right now,” he continued, “fathers are missing from our strategy to drive down the poverty rate. The gains that we’ve made over the past 10 years have been fueled by mothers. … If we are going to achieve another round of substantial gains … we have to do more to connect fathers to jobs and to their families. We have to increase the rewards for work. …”

Among the changes he suggested is eliminating the EITC “marriage penalty” for families with and without children. “Marriage increase a family’s chances of rising out of poverty — why would government discourage it? It shouldn’t. … The EITC should be a catalyst for fathers to fulfill their obligations as responsible spouses, parents and citizens.”

No hot-button cultural rhetoric there. Dry. Nuts-and-bolts.

To the extent that influential voices are dissuaded from addressing vital issues, such as the consequences of the missing father, because they themselves aren’t poor or have failed marriages, everybody loses. Imagine the treatment had Bloomberg chosen to talk about the real dynamic driving poverty, the creation of babies without bothering to marry.

Bloomberg started his conversation with the usual pabulum about education as “one of the best ways to fight poverty.” It is of course true. No question. But when 69.3 percent of black children, 46.4 of Hispanic and 24.5 of white children are born to unmarried women, the die is cast long before the first schoolteacher enters their lives. And even then, it’s fantasy land to believe any public school system anywhere in America can backfill the hours of guidance and teaching the walkaway father might have provided.

When the War on Poverty was first launched in 1964, single women headed 30 percent of the poor families with children. Today it’s double that. The Brookings Institution, to which Bloomberg delivered the same speech, noted in 2002 that in 2000, 40 percent of the children in female-headed families were poor, compared to 8 percent of the children in married families. Only 20 percent of children in families with incomes of less than $15.000 a year live with both parents.

Marriage reduces poverty. Now, because we’re reached the tipping point where the crisis of out-of-wedlock births is so deeply rooted, few public figures who wish to cultivate a following dare mention it. So they walk around it and talk around it.

But sooner or later, leaders rich and poor, married and divorced, do have to start the conversation. And we have to encourage them.

• Jim Wooten is associate editor of the editorial page. His column appears Tuesdays, Fridays and Sundays.

Permalink | Comments (165) | Post your comment | Categories: Column

Comments

By Mid-South Philosopher

September 4, 2007 8:13 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim,

The issue of marriage and, more especially, the presence of fathers in the child raising environment cannot be too often stated and encouraged. That being true, there is another element that ought to be considered.

When parents, for whatever reason, are compelled to place themselves and their children on the dole in whatever capacity, they, in my judgment surrender their right to procreate any further while they are maintaining themselves and their spawn on the public’s dime. Mandatory birth control should be required for the females, and, for father’s that procreate while their offspring(s) are on relief, incarcerated should be the order of business for them until such time as their charges are off the dole.

Of course, this is NOT going to happen because we, as a society, are too stupid to take the cure.

By CJKatl

September 4, 2007 8:28 AM | Link to this

Why is it that older, white, middle aged, Christian, conservative men think that the answer to societies ills is getting fathers to marry baby-mamas? That’s like treating an infection by only attacking the fever.

The problem does not come from the fact that the parents are not married, it comes from the socio-economics that led to them becoming parents in the first place. We have large groups of young people that have never been taught about planning for your life, setting goals, and meeting them. They don’t know anything about delayed gratification. They’ve been taught that it’s all about what you can get now, be it expensive cars, big homes, or instant booty. It’s young women who think getting a child will be the answer to life’s problems.

Rather than expend energy trying to get these people into marriage - a marriage with nothing but bad potential - we should concentrate efforts on education, mentoring, and life coaching.

My neighborhood is a good example: there are women in the forties who became young mothers. They’re the ones walking to the bus from falling apart houses. Then there are those with brand new houses, driving BMWs and vacationing in Europe/South Pacific a couple times a year. We need to show the young people that they have a choice in which group to join, and how to gain entry into the second. And that would include delayed gratification, not having kids at a young age, and staying in school. Then we need to give them the support to do that.

Ultimately, we will turn a generation around. Forcing people into a marriage won’t do any of that.

By Mid-South Philosopher

September 4, 2007 8:37 AM | Link to this

CJKatl@8:28

It is this older, white, middle-aged,Christian-Sufi,libertarian male’s position that, while the father marrying the mother is desirable, it is MORE important that the *dude supports the offspring that he has so “manly” produced!

I don’t mind helping anyone in an emergency, and no child should ever go without, but I resent like Hades paying for fun I didn’t get to have!!!

By Cookie

September 4, 2007 8:38 AM | Link to this

What? Are you kidding me? Why are we discussing something that can’t be fixed? In order to stop what is going on, we need to look for these dead beat dads who don’t pay child support the same way we look for child molesters and murders. By us putting our foot on their necks and not letting up EVER, this problem will ultimately go away. Let’s not just suspend their license and garnish checks, let’s put them on Americas Most Wanted, milk cartons, bus stop benches, etc. Now doesn’t that make sense? Let’s hunt them down like the dogs they are!

By Gwen

September 4, 2007 8:44 AM | Link to this

Why is it when you have an article that would benefit our society as a whole, you only get a couple of responses?

I don’t think marriage is the answser, but tell young men not to get the nookie and they are not protected.

As Marvin and Tammy sings “It Takes Two.”

By Laura

September 4, 2007 8:49 AM | Link to this

Wooten kills me! I guess if you are rich and can pay your child support then divorce is okay. Must be to the Republicans since everyone of their major candidates except for Romney has had multiple marriages with children. And I guess it’s okay to be a single mom so long as you were at least once married for a time. Our cavalier attitude towards marriage and divorce are some of the main reasons we have so many children born out of wedlock. Too many people have suffered under divorce as children and when they grow up they would rather avoid the whole scene altogether. This is the example we, for generations now, have been providing for our children. And no, the w******* has no right to teach us about morality. You must have some moral center in order to lecture people on a subject and make laws about it. Being rich is no balm for being morally challenged.

By Van

September 4, 2007 8:49 AM | Link to this

We seem to forget that it takes two to tango. We have on one hand, a lack of responsibility of the male to support his offspring. On the other hand, we have a lack of moral, self respecting women.

I am sure there are other factors and situations, but from one persons view point, we have a generation of of folks that just do not give a damn, and a government that doesn’t either.

By dawg_gone_truth

September 4, 2007 8:55 AM | Link to this

If we had some fair Judges it would be better, if a dad works he pays out almost all his check to his babies momma’s and he aint got nothing for his self. He can’t even afford a car to drive to work or food to eat. He don’t even have bus fare. If the whites would he just and fair, they would pay blacks slave reparations and we could use that money for child support and then get a job.

By Laura

September 4, 2007 8:56 AM | Link to this

To Van: So it’s only the woman who has a morality problem in this scenario? The man is not expected to keep his zipper up? I have no respect for your double standards. But that’s the attitude, men are just wanton sex pigs and it all womenkinds fault if we give into him. He can’t help it but we can! Right! Tell me another one you backwardsass moron!

By Redneck Convert

September 4, 2007 9:05 AM | Link to this

Well, us rednecks get all riled up when somebody else is having You Know What and making us pay for it. That’s why we lock people up that don’t pay child support here in GA. It don’t matter that they got no job or money to pay the support. We want them locked up for what they done in the first place. Then making us hardworking taxpayers pay for the doctoring and food and all that stuff. Having You Know What outside of marriage is just wrong. It goes against what we teach in church.

Anyhow, we need to put the fathers of these illegal babies to work on road gangs and such. Then take everything they make to pay for the child support. If you make them marry the woman they will just make more babies and we will just have more of Those People and welfare bums. And we ought to snip the men so they can’t make more babies.

That’s how you handle it. The minute a single woman says she’s in the Fambly Way and names the father, the police come and take that father straight to a doctor’s office for the snipping.

We got to put a stop to all this sinning, and snipping is the way to do it. A guy that knows he’s going to get snipped if he makes a baby with a unmarried woman will think twicet before he sins. And while we’re at it we can just snip the Other Thing too. If he don’t got that he can’t sin. My buddy Jim Earl says you use the Death Penalty to make sure a killer don’t kill again and you use the Dearth Penalty to make sure a guy don’t father no more illegal kids.

Anyway, that’s my opinion and it’s very true. This is GA, not some yankee state where they try to use colledge and job training and stuff to stop a woman from having illegal kids. We don’t want a answer, we want revenge.

By jack

September 4, 2007 9:07 AM | Link to this

As he is addressing the issue of wedlock and money, then his marital status and financial status are relevant. As you always say Mr. Wooten, you want to know where he is coming from and what possible agenda he is attempting to advance.

If anything, his job title is not relevant to the discussion. But if you exclude one set of descriptors then you should exclude the other.

By No Child Support

September 4, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this

I grew up with an absent father who refused to pay child support and found ways around it when he was court-ordered to do so (he would quit jobs so his pay wouldn’t be docked, move without notice, etc.) While the ability to track people has come a long way since then, I still think the the gov’t spends way more time making sure the mother can’t afford to support her child(ren) than they do tracking down the absent father who might actually be able to help her support THEIR children.

I had a child out of wedlock and while I am in agreement that any type of welfare should be given on a temporary basis, there is little incentive to get off welfare by bettering yourself and situation. I worked from the time my son was 4 weeks old and although I gave the father’s information repeatedly to DFCS, it wasn’t until he was nearly 5 years old before I was contacted the first time by Child Support Enforcement (asking me for updated contact information on the father nonetheless). I know there are new laws in place to help ensur the absent parent pays child support (suspension of professional licenses and such), however in all reality, there is little or no enforcement of child-support for people who cannot afford attorneys. I certainly didn’t have the money to hire an attorney- I was too busy trying to figure out how to pay for the necessities of life.

By the time my son was 3, I was working full-time and going to college part-time. I could barely afford anything and therefore took out student loans to pay for daycare, transportation & health insurance for my son (I was on an academic scholarship and never used my loans to pay for tuition). It was then, making $9/hour, the state decided I could suddenly afford health insurance! These people have obviously never tried to support a child making $9/hour. PeachCare now exists which I applaud but all the system does is punish those who try to do better. Not only did I have to find private insurance but then the next year, when DFCS determined I made too much money for a few of the months that my son was on Medicaid, they decided to dock my state tax refund. Do you think they docked the state tax refund of the bio-father? NOPE.

I absolutely think that the welfare system of this country needs rules to get people off their payrolls but the rules should be fair in that if it takes 2 people to make a baby, then it should take 2 people to pay for one. The system should find ways to encourage people to get off the state payrolls (income spent on health insurance should not count towards eligibility, provide childcare supplements, go after the absent parent, etc) rather than encourage the care giver to sit home and not try to better his/herself.

By Van

September 4, 2007 9:13 AM | Link to this

Laura,

Selective reading again I see.

I showed two sides of the same coin. Some women have always call men dogs, some women act like cats - whats the big deal.

If either of the couple had an ounce of self respect and responsibility, the problem with out of wedlock children would be a foot note in the history books.

And yes, I do ascribe the woman with the morals yoke. She is the one that must live with the consequences. She will be forced to take responsibility of two lives.

By Mid-South Philosopher

September 4, 2007 9:15 AM | Link to this

We are dealing with two different issues in this theme….morality and responsibility.

Morality is largely up to a personal interpretation. It is true that we have certain moral precepts that society has ingrained into law, but these change as the society changes, e.g., the perception of divorce in the latter half of the 20th century.

The anarchist in me says that so long as your morality doesn’t harm anyone else (especially me) more power to you.

Now, we can argue that the morality of illegitimacy harms the child, and we can point to those indivuals who never got over the stigma of bastd status. However, I suspect that many of us know an equal number of illegitimate children who grew up to be highly successful individuals.

The issue of responsibility is something else altogether. Don’t expect me to finance or subsidize your moral choices. Everybody who play ought to pay!

By DebbieDoRight

September 4, 2007 9:18 AM | Link to this

Mandatory birth control should be required for the females, and, for father’s that procreate while their offspring(s) are on relief, incarcerated should be the order of business for them until such time as their charges are off the dole.

Why not have mandatory birth control for men, why just the women? It takes two sets of chromosones to make a child; there are men out there, married, divorced, single with multiple families — why not put them on birth control? Or at least impulse control.

By Kristie Carter

September 4, 2007 9:19 AM | Link to this

I am of the opinion that if Bloomberg is financially responsible for his children, and is in public service, then he has every right to address the issues at hand. Yes, we need to include Moms AND Dads in the financial responsibility of raising children, but I’m not sure Marriage is the way to go. What really should be happening is that women stop spreading their legs without being pro-active in their birth control, and men need to start looking at a woman for something other than what IS between their legs. We need to start preaching abstinence and responsibility long before our kids get into high school. We need to bring back our family values, and stop electing people into office who can’t maintain their own marriages and control their own children (Mr. Guiliani comes to mind…) who then make stupid legislative decisions.

When are we going to realize that so many of our problems in our society today come from our choices to stray from decent moral substance? If you put lipstick on a pig, isn’t it still a pig?

By AmVet

September 4, 2007 9:23 AM | Link to this

This issue like virtually every other social or other ailment in America is ALWAYS going to be framed in the context of money.

People like Wooten are going to give the Bloomberg’s and ultra-rich a pass because they can more effectively buy their way out of the difficulty that they have helped caused for their children.

He can afford to keep his ex in a life-style where she is attractive to another sperm donor.

And the “disenfranchised” will always contend that they are acting no differently, whether true or not, but simply have not the financial means to make everything OK. They too fail to see this as an issue of immorality or the lack thereof.

And I’m not simply talking about the promiscuity of teenagers and sadly even younger children.

I’m talking about bringing a child into this world without the wherewithal to care for them properly and to raise them to become more than vacuous, self absorbed brats or even misanthropes. And that sacrifice entails a helluva lot more just than money.

By DebbieDoRight

September 4, 2007 9:24 AM | Link to this

Rather than expend energy trying to get these people into marriage - a marriage with nothing but bad potential - we should concentrate efforts on education, mentoring, and life coaching.

I think positive reinforcements by the parents are a good place to start too. My parents always started a sentence with, “When you go to college”, not “if you go to college”. For instance: “When you go to college, then you can do what you want — for now you’re in my house…..”

By Debbie's Pimp

September 4, 2007 9:26 AM | Link to this

DebbieDoRight - you want mandatory birth control for both men and women? That’s pretty stupid. Only one needs it - not both. Go wasting our tax dollars some more, will ya!

By DebbieDoRight

September 4, 2007 9:28 AM | Link to this

On the other hand, we have a lack of moral, self respecting women

Van: I guess any woman who gets with you has no morals or self-respect? Gee…. talk about TMI!!

By Van

September 4, 2007 9:29 AM | Link to this

Mid-South Philosopher,

I must disagree a little. It is our moral or ethical standards that govern our responsibilities.

If your ethical upbringing says you take care of your own, then this becomes a responsibility for you.

By deegee

September 4, 2007 9:30 AM | Link to this

How does marriage keep two immature, adolescent high school dropouts with a child/children out of poverty? Who is going to hire them and how much can they earn?

By Rod

September 4, 2007 9:31 AM | Link to this

Hey Kristie Carter - you said: “If you put lipstick on a pig, isn’t it still a pig?”

No, it’s the blogger on here known as time for the truth!

By Mid-South Philosopher

September 4, 2007 9:37 AM | Link to this

To DebbieDoRight @ 9:18

I have to admit that at my age, it is no longer a concern for me nor a danger to anyone else (especially since I am monogomous). Consequently, I have not kept up with the advances in male birth control, but I would not be opposed to mandatory imposition of the same to fathers in that situation.

To No Child Support @9:09

You sound like the person who merits assistance. I note that in your process of working your way toward being fully independent, you did not reproduce again, thus adding to your financial burden. It sounds as though you are the type of person the system ought to be designed to help instead of hinder. Had you been of sorry character, it would have been easier for you to survive on the dole. As it was, your industriousness was punished.

We ought to do better.

By DebbieDoRight

September 4, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this

Wooten: Marriage reduces poverty

Marriage doesn’t reduce poverty, JOBS reduce poverty. Stop sending jobs overseas and see how quickly poverty can be reduced.

By Laura

September 4, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this

Well, Van, if you only expect the woman to have morality re: sexual behavior then I guess you are okay with what Larry Craig was trying to do in that airport bathroom. No woman involved and no potential for a baby. Just a man trying to act on his sexual desires with someone whom you also hold to no sexual morals. Great! Glad to know you approve.

By timetopissontheneoconscumandotherrepubicsublifeforms

September 4, 2007 9:41 AM | Link to this

OUT OF WED LOCK BIRTHS ARE NOT A PROBLEM FOR NEOCONS, GIVEN THEIR SEXUAL PREFFERENCES FOR BATHROOM STALLS IN THE MENS ROOM. As for the rest of us, there has long been a name for babies born out of wedlock, it is just not politically correct to use that name anymore. The solution is of course RU486. If the jesus freaks don’t like it, they can just kiss my shiny white assets.

By CJKatl

September 4, 2007 9:47 AM | Link to this

Kristie stated We need to bring back our family values, and stop electing people into office who can’t maintain their own marriages and control their own children (Mr. Guiliani comes to mind…) who then make stupid legislative decisions.

I’m sorry, but Guliani’s children? Why is it if a man and woman bring up a child to be able to express his/her own views, it’s deemed a failure? Why is it that we think if a parent has not instilled the lock-stock-and-barrel ideas into the children, the parent has somehow failed? I’d rather have children who can absorb facts, consider them, and come to their own solution that have children who believe they are serving their country by working on daddy’s campaign because daddy told them that.

Raising independent thinkers shows true success as a parent. And given any other faults that Guliani and Hanover may have, at least they somehow did that right!

By Curious Observer

September 4, 2007 9:48 AM | Link to this

Thanks a lot, Wooten. Now you’ve issued an invitation to our resident poster child for improved mental health services, TFTT. Shortly, I expect to see a diatribe about the immorality and irresponsibility of blacks and Mexicans, complete with such descriptive adjectives as “ebonics-spouting” and “scum-sucking.”

By DebbieDoRight

September 4, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this

I absolutely think that the welfare system of this country needs rules to get people off their payrolls but the rules should be fair in that if it takes 2 people to make a baby, then it should take 2 people to pay for one.

Reasonable. But trying to get some of these “It’s the woman’s fault, give her a scarlet letter” folks to think like that will take more than law, it’ll take an act of God.

By Stef

September 4, 2007 9:50 AM | Link to this

I agree that the Right has lost all their authority to keep muttering on about morality. They are only concerned with the morality of others. Meanwhile they are humping away in bathroom stalls and divorcing their wives in droves. They are a joke and I am shocked that they don’t know that we can see it. They don’t want any babies to be born out of wedlock yet they want to outlaw abortion and almost an reasonable access to birth control. They rant and rave about gays and pass laws to supress them meanwhile they stalk young male pages and can’t stay away from elicit bathroom sex. They have elevated ministers as the highest form of moral authority meanwhile these ministers are molesting children and cavorting with prostitutes (male and female). Whenever I hear them saying “don’t do this” and “don’t do that” I can assure myself that they are closing the closet door and doing whatever they are “against” until they pass out. When will we learn that the ones who crow the loudest about how moral they are are the ones with the most to hide. You dirty, naughty, nasty bad boys you. We’ve got your number!

By Cheryl

September 4, 2007 9:51 AM | Link to this

I’m here to complain about out of dreadlock births. Why should new borns have to put up with bad hair days? Dreadlocks have been a staple of style for decades, and we as a society should ascertain that all babies, of all colors, should never be born out of dredlock….what? it’s out of Wedlock? Well, still, hair is import….but that IS different……

Nevermind.

By Van

September 4, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this

Laura,

That issues shows a lack of morals, common sense and responsibility.

It is a sad day when folks seek the use of bathrooms for close encounters and not the well appointed no-tell motel.

It is especially sad when a group advocates the use of bathrooms for these meetings. I can not imagine sending my pre-teen son(many years ago) into a public bathroom by himself. 15 years ago, I did not even imagine this type of behavior went on.

By DebbieDoRight

September 4, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this

Since Wooten has such a hard time with “unwed” births; then he should support Reproductive Education for children in schools; Abortion Rights and the rights of Gay individuals to adopt children.

By @@

September 4, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this

Oh no Jim, you’ve opened up that can of worms…natural rights vs. legal rights. What were YOU thinking?

Bloomberg needs to understand that morality comes at no cost. That’s why Jesus never carried money, but offered something far more valuable in his teachings.

Your column today brings to my mind the is-ought question in philosophy and I like the way that Ayn Rand answered it.

“The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the relation between ‘is’ and ‘ought’. Rand also maintained that “an ultimate value is that final goal or end to which all lesser goals are the means, and it sets the standard by which all lesser goals are evaluated.”

“An organism’s life is its standard of value…that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil.” She determined that an objective system of morality is both possible and necessary.

Now, back up to the first paragraph where liberalism finds its’ roots.

One theory of natural rights was developed from the theory of natural law during the Enlightenment in opposition to the divine right of kings, and provided a moral justification for liberalism.

Sound familiar?

Bush and “family-values” conservatives are tyrrants.

I’ve read it countless times here. The liberal perspective of Screw the family values crowd. Just show us (liberals/socialists) the money.

Hell, if I were a liberal conspiracy theorists, I would say that today’s immoralities have been promoted and supported by the leftists so that they could accuse conservatives of being heartless, and pursue their “collective society” goals.

Our children were a high price to pay for leftists to achieve their goal.

By fedup

September 4, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this

The fact that almost 70% of black children are born to unwed mothers comes as no surprise. The problem almost always lies with the black male in our society. The pattern of irresponsibility, and immaturity is horrible. Their selfish and self-centered attitude, which seems to be encouraged and reinforced in part, by rap music, seems to be one, of obtaining as many women as they can get. Never committing to one, sometimes having children by different women and never growing up. I used to wonder why we were so disliked by other races, now I think I understand. This pattern of behavior is reprehensible. Family is fundamental. It the black race can’t get family right, how can we ever be respected? Our priorities are so confused! Black men, grow up and be men!! Stop defining yourself by having as many women as you can get! Get and stay married! Stop having cavalier and casual sex! If she is good enough to have sex with..she should be good enough to marry! Stop hopping from bed post to bed post! Care more for your women then that,then and only then can you begin to love yourselves! Love your children enough to STAY and marry their mother! At the very least, make the effort! It is NOT all just about YOU!!Black women…stop having sex and children by no good black men whose morals and committment are in question!! Being a single parent is no joke! This decision creates generations of disadvantaged children who often have a difficult life ahead of them! Instead of admiring and getting involved with a “player” select a family man instead! Much credit in all races should be given to a family man. He is one to be admired, for he has put his wife, and children before himself. Black people, understand this and work on getting it RIGHT!!!

By Laura

September 4, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this

Van, your ignorance and moral uncertainty are both hilarious. What Craig did was wrong to you but only because he chose a public bathroom as his venue? If he had gone to a discreet motel it would have been fine? I just want to be clear because that seems to be what you are saying. Also, you are missing the point of the Craig episode. The point is to have quick, anonymous sex between connecting flights. No time to go to a motel and no desire to “get to know” someone well enough to. Duh! This is widely practiced by men across the country. I have a friend who works at Hartsfield Jackson and he says this is a huge problem there. My husband and I stopped at a gas station once in Cordele, GA and my husband said the bathroom was totally grafittied with stuff about “meet me here” for gay lovin. I have no problem with gay men or homosexuality. I am a live and let live kind of person. But I am smart enough to know that if you shame people about something and make laws against it and tell them that they are dirty and wrong, they still won’t stop doing it. They will just get married and put on the appearance of being “normal” and then they will get their ya-yas out on the sly with male prostitutes and anonymous folks in bathrooms. You can supress a sexual behavior only so much. If you make abortion illegal and start putting people in jail for having children out of wedlock then you will bring back the back alley butcher abortionist. People aren’t going to stop having sex but if you make them feel that they can’t or shouldn’t have sex then that’s where things get truly dangerous. When will people learn? The sexual revolution has happened. I am afraid you can’t stuff the genie back in the bottle.

By time to slice and dice all treasonous cut and run liberal scum

September 4, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this

@ snivelling MoRoN rod …

Your cowardly, utterly unprovoked hate - which predicktably all the verminous leftist yellowbellied hypocrites sullenly ignore - whilst as deranged as ever is hilariously just as factually flawed as always. I simply cannot be a “pig” bubbaqueerturd … because happily my mother NEVER met your deadbeat child molesting pappy!!

“Debbies pimp” …. LMFAO … now that’s a funny id!! Must be difficult though living off your share of 50 cent tricks? The best birth control for men, women and rabid possums anywhere is a nakkkid pikkkture of crackpipe debbieturd!! Any chance of you seriously b iiiitch slapping this black racist far left cut and run b iiiitch for the rest of us normal non pinko scum in America?? YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE!!

I see the brimming with liberal hate poster child for the immediate return of the electric chair FOR ALL LIBERALS has puked up again @ 9.41. Just yet another typical shrill unhinged far leftist queer raging incoherently about suddenly finding out its got AIDS.

This queeralicious nutter’s junkie mammy should have been much more careful at the homotraitor’s sperm bank. Drinking on the job wasn’t a great idea!!

huge spit on ALL liberals smirk

By tiff

September 4, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this

Having children out of wed-lock is not the problem. Giving the people who have kids out of wed-lock welfare is a problem. You can’t dictate what people do in their bedrooms, those are moral issues. But when the system pays for their actions that is the real injustice to everyone. I have said time and again, this system was set up to keep people on welfare, besides if they get married these things will be taking away from them. We have all seen from the likes of people such as Senator Craig, President Bush, Gonzales, Cheney etc. you can’t give people morals. They either have them or they don’t.

By @@

September 4, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

Oh chit! I can’t believe that Senator Craig’s adventures in the toilet have entered this discussion on out-of-wedlock children.

I don’t believe that Craig was looking for marriage in the bathroom and there was absolutely no possibility that the encounter would produce children.

Too funny!

By Carolyn

September 4, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this

Wooten is correct to distract the blog from police stings. Fatherless children is one symptom of the moral decay that accompanies aging capitalist societies, but it should never be a litmus test for who’s worthy to advance the discussion. Good ideas can come from imperfect people.

The solution itself to fatherless children is the problem itself. When we discuss poverty and divorce we point fingers and we think we can out-soundbite each other. We actually think we’ve advanced the discussion by humiliating others.

There is a solution out there, but it’s complex and requires in-depth analysis of mined data across a spectrum of socio-cultural demographics. The solution will require local involvement of community leaders and schools and churches in a united program where individual egos give way to the needs of the impoverished, disenfranchised, and fatherless children.

Finding deadbeat dads is the first step. Cant find a dead beat dad? Give him a parking place! Next to the expectant mom’s. Instead of a stork, the sign would have a picture of a guy in a leisure suit going into a gambling casino. No deadbeat dad could resist a parking place so close to the store. You could have orphans with faded polaroids hanging around the sign going, “Pa? Is..that you..Pa?”

By Barbara

September 4, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this

Mid-South Philospher is correct, why should the taxpayers continue to support irresponsible adults that know where children come from? If someone is living off the government, then the government has a right to stop them from pro-creating. It also doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize when you can’t afford to have children. Our Federal government started this trend with the welfare program. It can be fixed, and it doesn’t take a lot of “educating” people about where babies come from.

By Cyndi

September 4, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this

I have not received one single dime of court ordered child support for well over 16 years. My ex put everything in his girlfriend’s/wife’s/flavor of the month’s name, worked part-time, or for cash under the table, etc. He even tried to fake his own suicide, but didn’t leave a body……..just to get out of paying for a child he helped bring into the world. He has since gone on and created 4 more children with 3 more women…….

One man, 5 kids, 4 single moms, and none of them receive any support from this guy.

I choose not to rely on the government and took matters into my own hands. I worked my butt off in order to buy us house. I worked my butt off to keep my house. I worked my butt off to pay for everything my child and I need. I still work my butt off to support us, in our second home. Now I’m trying to put money away for college, and let me tell you how hard that is.
I went to the court numerous times, gave them all the information they needed to track him down, and they did nothing, absolutely NOTHING. So I basically gave up, and realized I had to do it myself. I also realized I’m alot stronger than I thought I was. Big lesson learned……!!! I’m just glad we only had one kid together!!!

By Adam

September 4, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this

Whatever the subject of the day happens to be, we can always expect the Libs to rant in every other direction rather than debate the actual issue. Today is no exception. We have Debbie, Stef, Laura and others all in a huff about evil white men, gay bathroom sex, anything but the subject of parental responsibility.

Thomas Sowell has a great thought in his column today that fits our Liberal bloggers perfectly: - One of the painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable to make a coherent argument. They can vent their emotions, question other people’s motives, make bold assertions, repeat slogans— anything except reason.

By jct

September 4, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this

Isn’t out of wedlock children multi-prong issue?

  • If you get pregnant before completing educational requirements to successful attain solid job prospects you more than likely will remain in a state of poverty. Even if the father is present. What has the father done to make the family less poor?

  • If a grown woman of 37 has a baby without the benefits of marriage but has successful completed educational pursuits and makes above the median income would that be a problem?

    • The family in #2 would not be thrown into poverty if the father was not in the picture. How would the situation improve in #1 if the parents are teenagers?

    Fatherhood and poverty don’t always correlate in my mind. I believe that you can find statistics to back up any argument.

    I believe the point should be that fathers are very important in the development of their childrens’ lives. Even though my parents were divorced I always saw my Dad and could call him whenever I wanted. He paid child support.

    Waiting to have children until you are better able to financially support them should be the mantra. If you are still living with your parents, you should not be becoming a parent as well.

    Lastly, women have to choose carefully who they partner with. If you create a child with a half stepping man, he will become a half stepping father.

    That is the only thing that women has complete control over is who she chooses to have babies with. Make sure that you chose a man who will be a father to his children.

    This way there should also be less welfare.

    By Carolyn

    September 4, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

    Where do babies come from….you know they’ve never actually filmed the moment of conception that two people must do to accomplish a baby….the camera always drifts away to the seashore, or a train going through a tunnel, etc.

    I propose we select a cameraman to actually film the coitus un-interruptus that would theoretically be necessary to accomplish the moment of conception that would lead to an impoverished, abandoned orphan and entitlement sponge.

    By ConvervativeDem

    September 4, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

    I know women have been taught if you have unprotected sex you will get pregnant. Why are women so stupid they will have unprotected sex, have a baby, and want someone else to pay for their decision. You women who have been having a tough time…good! All of you should have a tought time. If you depend on the male and the government to support you or this child you brought into this world thru your stupidity then your level of stupidity has risen expotentially. Remember it is your body!! You screamed that for abortion rights. You got them so take care of your own decisions.

    By @@

    September 4, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this

    My best advice to the future of women and their children:

    When you go to the “produce” stand, don’t select the “root vegetables”. As the old saying goes…

    You can’t get blood (money) out of a turnip.

    By Nikita

    September 4, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this

    Man, am I tired of the “marriage cures poverty” meme. Marriage, in fact, tends to occur less in poverty — that doesn’t mean it has anything to do with causing or curing poverty.

    Now, if we want to cure poverty, we need to concentrate on helping people delay childbearing until they are capable of supporting the children they bear. Statistically speaking there is a proven link between the age at which one has kids and how one does economically — so let’s back those statistics up with policies that encourage positive behavior.

    By Carolyn

    September 4, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

    You know something? Adams RIGHT! The Neocons are going to listen no matter how we rant and bellow and act out. Their going to make it illegal to have straight sex no matter what we do. Well, you all can listen to the Right advance their Aztec ideas about sacrificing babies to the porcelain god in anonymous sac(remental) ceremonies and everything, but I am not going to sit here and listen to them bad-mouth the missionary position that my uncle taught me. I say we have a love-in like in the 60’s !!!

    Whose with me? Lets do it!

    By JJ

    September 4, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

    Lastly, women have to choose carefully who they partner with. If you create a child with a half stepping man, he will become a half stepping father.

    Why is it always up to the woman? Why don’t men take more responsibility? If you don’t want kids, then be a man, and use a condom!!! Don’t expect the woman to provide the birth control. Take responsibility for YOURSELF!!!

    Man up and be responsible!!!

    By Fed Up

    September 4, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this

    I wish the welfare system was better managed. It seems all people want to do is leave there home country and come here without a job then be the 1st one on line at the welfare office. These people are adding to the growing nbrs of the out of wedlock families. I know a lot of women that are raising their kids alone and are living above the poverty line. Not all of us mothers are poor. Give us a damn break! Too many of us make babies with worthless no good men and the only ones that suffer are the kids. Women need to me a lot smarter in chosing who they bed down with and start usisng birth controll more. For god’s sake you can get it free at the health clinic if you wanted to, but you don’t because you are too lazy and as long as there is welfare, why not. If you’re making $7.00hr, why are you having 3,4, 5 kids. It’s irresponsible and reckless to put yourself out there and MEDICAID will pay to have your tubes tied. I see women with 5 kids all with different dads. What are we teaching our sons & daughters. I wish black women especially would have more pride in herself as woman to teach our children to be better adults. I feel sorry for the generations to come because they have nothing to look forward to in chosing a mate! s

    By Van

    September 4, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

    Over the years and across cultures, the out-of-wedlock stigma has changed.

    Once called a b*******, that was too cruel, in the 60’s and 70’s, it became a “love child”. I guess things change.

    If an un-married woman had a little bundle of joy, in the old days, she had choices. Placing the child for adoption, having the child or going to a state the allowed abortion.

    In my high school days, if a young girl got pregnant, she disappeared for a period of time. She did not stay in school, she went to relatives or a home for unwed mothers.

    There was a stigma attached to the mother and child, a sense of shame and dishonor. Today, who cares. In our permissive society, no one is responsible and no one is at fault.

    Babies having babies is common and not the exception. I have seen day care centers in high schools and I just shake my head in wonderment.

    Is there no self respect anymore? Is the swinging lifestyle of the 70’s reached its peak - yet? Sex outside of marriage was not spoken of in polite society, at one time, now, it is understood in most cases. Today we think it odd if a couple does not live together before marriage. If they marry at all.

    While in todays society, women are much less inhibited than in my day, with that freedom to explore comes greater responsibility, same for the men. From this persons viewpoint, it appears, that responsibility is missing. Freedom without responsibility is chaos.

    By SusieHomeMaker

    September 4, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

    Converative Dem: You are shrilling; not speaking.

    Adam: The women you listed have been talking about the subject; what they’re saying is “you always want to go after the woman, why not try going after the man; he’s responsible too”. You, unfortuantely, have preferred not to listen, or to hear only what you wish to hear.

    By @@

    September 4, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

    OMG, Political Foreskin a/k/a Carolyn is having a “sexual identity” crisis. Can’t decide whether he’s male or female.

    Sorry Jim, these liberals are “hooters”. I’m laughing so hard tears are coming to my eyes.

    Let’s do it!

    Political Foreskin wants to bury his head in a crack. Any crack will do for PoliFore.

    Boob man or butt man.

    My apologies Jim. I’ll go back and read Mitt’s Rule #1.

    By ron

    September 4, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

    Cindi,you’re right,that’s how it’s done.It doesn’t matter if you’re single or married,you put your head down and you work.One day at a time,one dollar at a time.Whatever comes up, you deal with it.No whining,no running to welfare,just do it.In the end,look back to see if it’s was worth it.I hope for your sake it will be.

    By DebbieDoRight

    September 4, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

    Why is it always up to the woman? Why don’t men take more responsibility? If you don’t want kids, then be a man, and use a condom!!! Don’t expect the woman to provide the birth control

    Or better yet — If a man doesn’t want any children, EVER, then he should go down to his local friendly doctor and get it snipped. That way he can insure he will never have a child. Why depend on some fickle, hormonal woman? Take the “appendage” into his own hands and just do the dang thing!!!

    Just think if twisted’s dad would’ve just spent 30 minutes in the doctor’s office how much stupidness he could’ve saved the world from…

    By Fred Warren

    September 4, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this

    Wooten wrote a well argued column about entitlements. We need to lower taxes, and eliminate wasteful spending.

    But just when we thought the Right would crack down on pork, they “wood” their cracks down on porcelain.

    Curses, fooled again by the porn-again evangelists.

    By Truths Sister

    September 4, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this

    Has anyone seen my dear brother/sister lately? It’s time for his weekly hormone shots, (he’s changing into she/it, sheit); and if sheit doesn’t have it it turns into a mad raving lunatic. Ooops too late, I see sheit’s posted its mad filth allready. Sorry folks; sheit’s been a little “sheitty” lately.

    By Lily Toad

    September 4, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this

    Marriage is not the answer. If the man doesn’t work then the woman ends up supporting him and the child(ren) and there is no lifting her out of poverty. If the man is not in the picture there is a reason — they didn’t want to get married. Many young girls want a baby to have something of their own. I don’t agree with this approach, but it’s one reason they have babies without a husband. What if the man is a drug abuser or violent or abuses children? Should the mother still marry him. I don’t think all men are guilty of the scenarios I’m pointing out, but let’s get real.

    By jct

    September 4, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

    @ JJ

    I am not sure if you comprehended my meaning. During dating/selecting both parties should be looking at compatibility, tradition, values, whatever ‘it’ is that make people get together.

    During this process, I see too many women covering up for flaws in their ‘men’ just to have a man. I have seen women from all different types of races, ethincities and socio-economic backgrounds do this.

    I believe in birth control for men. In an ideal world, both parties would be equally responsible. However, I was not referring to men but the grown males who are running trying to look like men but not behaving like men.

    Since women are the ones who get pregnant and raise the child, why not choose to partner with a man who will be a father to his child.

    When I was a young lass I used to shrill the same statement. Wisdom has shown me that since in this circumstance there is not true equality then it is up to me (woman) to look out for my best interest.

    That best interest is not having children with half stepping men who don’t support nor nuture their children.

    By lets all larrrrrf at peeping tom!!!

    September 4, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this

    Nice to see that the execrable, should have been hung drawn and quartered peeping tom’s first cretinous thought is of its genetic and intellectual conservative betters.

    The imbecilic brainless doltishness of peeing, should that be peeping tom’s pathetic, playing rabid leftist possum attempt to ‘vitiate’ the UNDENIABLE decades old effects of black w horishness and the utterly shameful 70% illegitimate/b astard rate amongst ebonics spoutin’ hippety hop knuckle draggers which spawns the horrendous black crime rate - now overwhelmingly responsible for a 49% murder rate of blacks (mostly “capped” by other blacks) is enormously amusing.

    Its as if peeping tom knows the HARSH UNDENOIABLE TRUTH and like all rabid dishonestly lioberals seeks to minimise it and undermine its horrendous, ever present murderous sociopathic impact!!

    FACTS DONT LIE PEEPING TOM!!

    scum sucking scumbuckets like U need to STFU and stop lying/glosisng over the fact thta ist blacks - and blacks alone who are NOW responsible for their criminal, gimme gimme racial spoils behaviour!!! Aided and abetted of course by racist, cynical liberal vote buying supercilious bigoted uncaring vermin!!

    By harold

    September 4, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this

    aint nobodys business but the momma and the baby momma unless grammaw has to tkae the kid and then it her bidness. it sure aint conservative old white mens bidness. everybody know you dont have no babys by gettin it on with the dude in teh next stall

    By GeorgiaNoMore

    September 4, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this

    Folks…read Margery Eagan’s article in the Boston Herald called “No More Overlooking Negligent Procreation”. “Twenty-seven years ago, Candace Lightner founded Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to change attitudes about drunken driving from the stuff of comedy to the stuff of shame. Somebody should found Mothers About Raising Children Honorably (MARCH) to change our nonchalant attitudes about women bringing children into the world when they have no ability to raise them and no intention of learning how… But this is not just a black problem. Just months ago I covered a murder in mainly white South Boston. The family of the dead man repeatedly called him “a great family man” even though he had three children under 4 with two women. The obvious contradiction - you can’t be a great family man with two different families - apparently occurred to no one.” Let’s get back to basics. We need to start requiring a father’s name on birth certificates. That name should be used to recover child support money. As a taxpayer, I am sick of supporting baby-making factories of any color by offering them incentives to producing multiple offspring, like Section 8, WIC, and food stamps. Let us also stop glamorizing unwed celebrity births. Angelina Jolie is no saint in my book - 4 kids and a responsible daddy for now, but what happens when Brad Pitt flies the coop? Bridget Moynahan having Tom Brady’s baby…do we think he’ll even be a small part of that baby’s life? Again from Margery Eagan: “This is not an argument for shotgun weddings or abstinence or aborting every unplanned pregnancy. Birth controls fail. Accidents happen. And this is not meant to dump just on women, who don’t get pregnant alone. But men won’t fix this mess. This is an argument for changing the status quo: to stop acting like it’s just fine for women - black, white, poor, rich - to bear children with no expectation that fathers even show up and no wherewithal to keep those children safe.” Well said.

    By Fred Warren

    September 4, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

    Okay, let’s get real. You cant legislate sex. People are going to party no matter what. Any laws that creep into the bedroom are unenforceable jury nullification bait.

    Besides, just when we thought the Right would crack down on pork, they “wood” their cracks down on porcelain.

    By harold

    September 4, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

    so anyway marriage reduces poverty, but not nearly as much as a male gay partnership. they got more money than anybody. and the coupled childless are pretty well to do as well. it seems that breeding induces poverty. those with children struggle to pay the bills. those without children retire 15 years early and travel teh world. most folk are never gonna amount to much, and neither are their children, so stop the cycle of wastefulness. dont have children! parents oooh and aaah when their babies stop p** the floor, but harold oohs and aaahs that nobody p** on harolds floor at all!

    By GeorgiaNoMore

    September 4, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

    Folks…read Margery Eagan’s article in the Boston Herald called “No More Overlooking Negligent Procreation”. “Twenty-seven years ago, Candace Lightner founded Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to change attitudes about drunken driving from the stuff of comedy to the stuff of shame. Somebody should found Mothers About Raising Children Honorably (MARCH) to change our nonchalant attitudes about women bringing children into the world when they have no ability to raise them and no intention of learning how… But this is not just a black problem. Just months ago I covered a murder in mainly white South Boston. The family of the dead man repeatedly called him “a great family man” even though he had three children under 4 with two women. The obvious contradiction - you can’t be a great family man with two different families - apparently occurred to no one.” Let’s get back to basics. We need to start requiring a father’s name on birth certificates. That name should be used to recover child support money. As a taxpayer, I am sick of supporting baby-making factories of any color by offering them incentives to producing multiple offspring, like Section 8, WIC, and food stamps. Let us also stop glamorizing unwed celebrity births. Angelina Jolie is no saint in my book - 4 kids and a responsible daddy for now, but what happens when Brad Pitt flies the coop? Bridget Moynahan having Tom Brady’s baby…do we think he’ll even be a small part of that baby’s life? Again from Margery Eagan: “This is not an argument for shotgun weddings or abstinence or aborting every unplanned pregnancy. Birth controls fail. Accidents happen. And this is not meant to dump just on women, who don’t get pregnant alone. But men won’t fix this mess. This is an argument for changing the status quo: to stop acting like it’s just fine for women - black, white, poor, rich - to bear children with no expectation that fathers even show up and no wherewithal to keep those children safe.” Well said.

    By Fred Warren

    September 4, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this

    New Definition of Irony: Just when we thought the Right would crack down on pork, they “wood” their cracks down on porcelain.

    By harodl

    September 4, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this

    that MADD ho is only railing against teh drinking. never not once has MADD suggested people use the subway to go to the bar and get plasterd. if they want to end drunk driving, they need to end driving. people have alwasy got drunk and always will, but driving everywhere is a fatal fad that shall pass hoepfully soon

    By Curious Observer

    September 4, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this

    Thank you, TFTT. I feel vindicated, except for the absence of any mention of Mexicans in your rant. Perhaps you intend to address that subject in a separate rant—er, post.

    By Fred Warren

    September 4, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this

    Just when we thought the porn-again evangelical right would crack down on pork, they “wood” their cracks down on porcelain.

    By JK

    September 4, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

    Mr. Wooten, can you produce any statistics on divorced (married when the children were born) non-custodial parents who refuse, for whatever reason, to pay their court-ordered child support regularly and in full? I was just wondering, because I hear so many divorced women AND men who have custody say they don’t get a dime or a lick of help, or if they do, it’s rare at best.

    Do you have those numbers, or did you just feel like whipping people like Van into a “Sl—s are bad, ‘cause they never gave ME any” frenzy today?

    By Fred Warren

    September 4, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this

    Just when we thought the porn-again right would crack down on their pork, they “wood” their cracks down on porcelain.

    Is anyone as disappointed in that development inside the beltway as I am? What’s up with that? I mean, whose the spin wizard who came up with that idea?

    Like take the war. What is war good for? Absolutely Mutton! That’s right, the pricof lamb and government goat cheese has decreased since the war started allowing us to feed the fatherless orphans for less.

    Now doesn’t the left feel silly they squawked about the little ol’ police action in a country that nobody can even spell or find on a map?

    By Staceye

    September 4, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this

    dawggonetruth If we had some fair Judges it would be better, if a dad works he pays out almost all his check to his babies momma’s and he aint got nothing for his self. That is his problem for making all those babies in the first place. No one put a gun to his head. If you don’t want to pay…then don’t play! Don’t go out in the rain without a raincoat and not expect to get wet! I do not feel sorry for that type of man.

    Now I do agree that I takes two and I think a woman should think long and hard before having a baby, because she makes the final decision as to if there will be a baby. Can this guy be trusted as a good father and provider for his child? I also think if you do not see yourslef married to him..why have a child from him. Stop putting the cart before the horse. Get married first and get your finances in order. It is not fair to that child to suffer because dad’s a deadbeat and mom didn’t think her decision all the way through beyond, “I’m pregnant and the baby will be cute & little”! What’s next? That baby needs to have shelter, food and clothes. God forbid he/she gets sick…oh yeah rely on the taxpayers to pay for your kid! How responsible is that? I understand the urge to be a parent…but do it the correct way…even if you have to wait until you are 40 to have a baby. Stop letting yourselves be baby mamas and baby daddies and give that child a stable healthy enviroment where they are not wondering where their next meal is coming from or why they suddenly have no power when the rest of the block does! WAIT…EDUCATE…AND DO NOT RELY ON THE STATE AFTER YOU PROCREATE! now if you are a single woman making a great income and you want to be a mother but can not seem to find a suitable mate…morally it’s not on the up and up because a child needs a father…not a trifling one though. But at least you will not be relying on the taxpayers to pay for your kid…by all means! But those women who have a baby by a no good man and then expects the state to track him down to make him pay for his baby..well, was teh stae involved when you made that baby with that man? No! So why do you expect them to bend over backwards to help you? THINK BEFORE YOU MOVE PEOPLE!!!!

    Redneck Convert you need 2 things…first and education because you can not spell to save your life. I’d rather have an out-of-wedlock baby than an illiterate one. And second, you need help. That comment is why Yankees think that southerners are ignorant. I am a Yankee, but I do not feel that way because I know it’s not where you are from, but how you are raised. And it’s obvious you were raised in the back woods of Ignorant-Ville, USA!

    Fedup I cosign on your post. You are so right! These men are trife and these women are as well.

    By tomb

    September 4, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

    Its time we started referring to the babies born out of wedlock by their legal name, b*******. When you ask the young mother, “How is your little b******* doing?”, or “What’s the little b*******’s name”, others might take the hint.

    By jbmlaw

    September 4, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this

    Good morning all, hope all had a pleasant holiday. If one wishes to shape the outcome of a debate, certainly one tactic to employ is “pre-emptive disqualification” of all arguments opposed to the desired result. There is little unique about the covert “divorced billionaire dad” commentary, in attempting to marginalize the contribution of another intelligent being. How many times have we heard the same tactic against “global warming deniers,” attempting to invoke the same revulsion as “holocaust denier?” Many do not truly want an honest discussion, or even any expression of a difference of opinion; over the weekend I heard a major party candidate express distaste for “dividers,” meaning anyone who holds a viewpoint different from his own.

    There was a great line in the play “1776,” spoken by a rowdy character from Rhode Island (and I must paraphrase as I do not have this play memorized): “I never heard of any idea so dangerous that it cannot even be discussed.” I prefer to see even a rowdy give-and-take in debate, rather than sheep-like obsequiousness.

    By Single mom

    September 4, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this

    Tomb, my little b** is an honor student, multi-sport athlete, team captain, and has been class president more than once. Thanks for asking!

    By sean

    September 4, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

    They’re called condoms. They’re not only cheap and effective protection from unwanted children, they also protect you from disease, which should really scare people a whole hell of a lot more than having kids.

    I hate to say it, but this is really a problem of perpetual ignorance within lower-income communities, and it’s a problem that’s not going to get fixed probably ever. Stupid parents breed stupid kids, breed stupid kids, breed stupid kids. If you haven’t seen the movie “Idiocracy”, check it out - it shows us what life will be like if we continue to let the stupidest among us to breed out of control. Pretty scary.

    By DebbieDoRight

    September 4, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

    Of course he doesn’t have any facts! Wooten and Facts are an oxymoron.

    Harold: If people iin America stopped having children, tpretty soon there wouldn’t be an America. It would be called Canada.

    By Fred Warren

    September 4, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

    Just when we all thought that the porn-again Right would crack down on their pork, they “wood” their cracks right down on porcelain.

    Is that a haiku?

    By @@

    September 4, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this

    harold a/k/a Political Foreskin a/k/a Carolyn a/k/a Fred Warren:

    I’ve always viewed you as a pervert here, but I see you have misinterpreted by comment at 10:48.

    wood…crack…porcelain

    If the word head in my fourth paragraph had been intended as a euphemism, it would have been enclosed in quotes.

    To put it more clearly. You want to enjoy indiscriminate sex, let’s do it without acknowledging the consequences to children. Bury your head in other words.

    DebbieDoRight:

    You’re arguing women’s rights with your male condom mandate. The problem in our society today is there are too many individual groups arguing on behalf of their freedoms at the expense and peril of our society and future generations.

    Van hit the nail on the head when he posted that Freedom without responsibility is chaos. That’s where we are today, so where do we go from here?

    Later.

    By harold

    September 4, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

    Hmmm. It would be Canada but not as cold! That would be a huge improvement for both!

    By harold

    September 4, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

    all good conversatives know what if you You want to enjoy indiscriminate sex, then you go to the Hartsfield Jackson.

    It was the Jackson name being added that did it. Jacks-on. Uh huh. Brilliant move by the ATL. Let’s honor Maynard by inviting gay sex to our bathrooms!

    By harold

    September 4, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this

    fartshield jack son anal port!

    By JohnD

    September 4, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this

    Carolyn,

    You win the award for the most ignorant comment of the day:

    Fatherless children is one symptom of the moral decay that accompanies aging capitalist societies

    The above is a symptom of SOCIALIST society that grows an entitlement mentality.

    Responsibility.

    Simple enough to say but when some women see children as a means to more welfare or as an attachment to a celebrity and big child support payments there is unlikely to be a change in behavior.

    The females here today wish for the man to take responsibility whether married to the mother or not. Many complaints listed today from mothers who “gave the information to DCFS or child support recovery” but never received any money. Grow up and stop looking to government to solve your problems. Did these women ask government if they should participate in the act that produces the child?

    The woman, in most cases, allowed the worthless scoundrel to provide the seed and now wants everyone to pay taxes to help her support her “love child”.

    Just anothere example of the decay in a society that allows over 50% of the members to avoid paying taxes. An entitlement mentality ensues.

    By Fred Warren

    September 4, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

    The problem of out of wedlock kids is that we cant find deadbeat dads, right? Then give them a parking place! Instead of a stork, you can show a picture of a guy in a leisure suit walking into a gambling casino. Barefooted orphans with faded Polaroids could hang around the sign going, “Pa? Is that You? Pa?”

    problem solved. next topic.

    Anyone see how tentative Gates was in his “optimistic” statement about Iraq? That was high comedy, my friends, and I cant believe you all missed it. Gates said, “i’ve never been this optimistic” (I do memorize passages) which is so wide open for spin that it has the ring of genius.

    Gates is the big surprise in the Bush administration. His candor is refreshing. I wanted to hate Gates, and I did when he testified at his confirmation hearings for CIA chief, but he’s totally won me over, and I trust him.

    I trust Gates. (at least I trust I can decipher his spin)

    By DemDems4Ever

    September 4, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

    Debbie Do Right

    harold

    Red Neck Convert

    Dawg Gone Truth

    All are excellent examples of the need for sex education and more widely accepted means of birth control.

    By @@

    September 4, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

    No harold, as you are suffering from a crisis in your sexual identity, I can only assume that you support gay rights/gay sex.

    The “where”, the “when”, and the “with whom” cannot be separated from the “why”.

    I took to the track this morning with my once very liberal minister from the U.K. who recently returned to the states with more conservative leanings. He attributed this new found philosophy to the multiculturalism that is wreaking havoc in the U.K..

    We engaged in a discussion regarding rights of individual groups. His argument went like this and I’ll tie it into my natural rights vs. legal rights comment…

    If it isn’t natural, no amount of argument can justify it’s value to society’s future as a whole.

    Very interesting discussion with a very intelligent man with his doctorate in psychology/theology.

    Now I’m gone.

    By Redneck

    September 4, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

    The answer to the problem is simple. If a woman gives birth to a child and is financially unable to care for it the child will be taken from her and put into an orphanage. Not only will she and the sperm donor lose all parental rights they both will be sterilized.

    Simple and cost effective!!!

    By Carolyn

    September 4, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

    John D, I didn’t mean nuthin’, honest, I just made all that stuff up so I could use the deadbeat dad bit. I hate red. I hate commies. The worst think I hate in the whole world is a commie deadbeat runaway dad who parks illegally in handicapped spaces. I mean, If they’re having a bad hair day, they think their entitled to park in a handicapped space. Some of them are married, and they think being married entitles them to a handicap space. I hate that.

    No, john d, I’m on your side. Viva la capitalists!!! Viva la tax cuts!! death to the death tax!!! glory glory halleluiah, teacher hits me with the rulah…. how does it go?

    By GaLiberal

    September 4, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

    Moron Jim says: Marriage reduces poverty. Now, because we’re reached the tipping point where the crisis of out-of-wedlock births is so deeply rooted.

    What Moron Jim doesn’t tell you is that many unmarried women don’t want the father around. The father could be abusive, or a drug addict, or involved in crime. In any case, a bad influence on the child. Moron Jim makes it sound like these fathers are just sitting on the street corner drinking a beer waiting for an invitation.

    Another think Moron Jim doesn’t tell you is that it’s prohbitively expensive to have two working parents who are making minimum wage. They make make enough jointly not to qualify for food stamps or AFDC or other anti-poverty programs that Moron Jim and his neocon buddies deride as socialist handouts. Yes, two married people can probably earn enough to rise above the poverty level, but the real question is can they actually live? The answer with rare exception is no.

    Another thing that Moron Jim doesn’t tell you is that this isn’t about getting people out of poverty. This is targeted at African Americans; people that Moron Jim and his racist neocon buddies could care less about. All they want is to get people off the anti-poverty programs so Moron Jim and his neocon buddies have an excuse to shut them down. Then all that extra money can be diverted to something useful like tax cuts for Moron Jim and rich buddies. Or maybe more F-22 fighter planes at 2+billion per plane.

    By Marjorie

    September 4, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

    Back in the dark ages when I was in high school, girls who got pregnant were shunned, shamed, ridiculed. Ocasionally a young woman became pregnant so that the couple would have to marry. Nowadays, it is OK for this to happen,the girl has the baby and her mother raises it, more often than not very willingly. I once saw a young girl leaving the hospital with her baby, she got into the front seat with her father, her mother got into the back seat with the baby, very excited about it. Not the way it should be happening. And yes, it does take two, and the father should be hunted down for support and forced to work at some kind of job to help out, regardless.

    By Marjorie

    September 4, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

    Back in the dark ages when I was in high school, girls who got pregnant were shunned, shamed, ridiculed. Ocasionally a young woman became pregnant so that the couple would have to marry. Nowadays, it is OK for this to happen,the girl has the baby and her mother raises it, more often than not very willingly. I once saw a young girl leaving the hospital with her baby, she got into the front seat with her father, her mother got into the back seat with the baby, very excited about it. Not the way it should be happening. And yes, it does take two, and the father should be hunted down for support and forced to work at some kind of job to help out, regardless. Perhaps if birth control were taught instead of being swept under the rug, the birth rate might drop. The fantasy mode of thinking that abstinence is the best way is not realistic, kids are having sex whether we adults like it or not, they should be taught birth control and offered it also.

    By DebbieDoRight

    September 4, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

    You’re arguing women’s rights with your male condom mandate. The problem in our society today is there are too many individual groups arguing on behalf of their freedoms at the expense and peril of our society and future generations.

    I’m not arguing women’s rights, per se, what I’m arguing is personal responsibility, (a good conservative catch-phrase). What I’m saying is not just responsibility for the mother but responsibility for the father too. Too long men have gotten a pass on their misdeeds. A man rapes a woman, it’s the woman’s fault for dressing provactively; looking at him too long, saying NO only 444 times, etc. The man has gotten away with irresponsibility and degenerate behavior for too long; they have an obligation to take care of their child. PERIOD.

    Curious mentioned mandatory birth control for women who abuse the system; (which is not rampant today with the advent of computers as some statements want to suggest); but I want to know what about the MEN? What about regulating their procreation rights?

    I know, personally, a few men who have been married more than twice with at least 3 kids each from each marriage. These men complain about child support, and barely pay the minimum due; (though they didn’t complain when they were making said children). That’s ridiculous!! The same moral standard that society want to foist on women should be foisted upon men too.

    If men don’t want any children ever, NOR do they wish to pay for anymore if they already have some; then why don’t they take “personal responsibility” for their own lives and get a vasectomy? Why keep having baby after baby after baby with different women and try to dodge paying for any of them?

    Why can’t men be held to the same social morals and mores as women? Why are men the studs and women the sl*ts?

    By fedup

    September 4, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this

    To @@ you are so right!

    By Staceye

    September 4, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this

    Hey Redneck who do you think pays for the orphanage Rock Scientist….TAXPAYERS!!!! So problem not solved…just rezoned and proned to other problems! Not to mention the state funded mandatory sterilization…ugh! Read a book or something!

    By Screwy Wabbit

    September 4, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this

    The War on Poverty was launced in 1964 under false pretenses. They said there were WMDs, (Wives of Missing Dads). They said that if we pulled out early…….

    By Staceye

    September 4, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this

    Hey Redneck who do you think pays for the orphanage Rock Scientist….TAXPAYERS!!!! So problem not solved…just rezoned and proned to other problems! Not to mention the state funded mandatory sterilization…ugh! Read a book or something!

    By nono

    September 4, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this

    Except in the cases of rape or incest, it is always the decision of the woman whether or not to have the child. But women don’t always make the decision that is best for their child’s future (i.e., the decision not to have the child AT ALL). The most loving and difficult act for a mother to perform is NOT to bear or raise a child. Yet so many women deal with this as an emotional issue rather than from a logical and financial standpoint. The bottom line is, if you can’t afford birth control pills or condoms (I’ve been on the pill for 17 years and no children yet!) then you should not be having SEX because obviously you can’t afford a CHILD either. But too many women don’t think about that—they only think about wanting to be with the baby’s daddy and how wonderful life will be once he’s been trapped by you with a kid HE doesn’t want. And in the middle of that mess is a child whose father doesn’t want it and a single mother working her tail off at two minimum wage jobs and going to school but having no time to RAISE her child and give it the home it needs to thrive. And dad is nowhere to be found—it takes more than a child support payment to be a father, and it takes more than a marriage ceremony and license to be a father and husband. Marriage is NOT the answer. The answer is giving young women the self esteem necessary to look beyond the moment and know that what they do today affects their entire future, and the access to contraception to both men and women that will prevent pregnancy. Oh, and if you don’t want to be a dad? WHERE a CONDOM you goober!

    By No way

    September 4, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this

    GaLiberal; Statistics show that single parent homes are predominantly African American. Wooten can only address the statistics so your targeting Jim Wooten and conservatives is a disingenuous attempt to displace the blame and cost.

    By Tom Brady

    September 4, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this

    You mouth-breathing backwoods non-selling beer on Sunday southern inbred scum need to get a life. I see nothing wrong with having kids out of wedlock as long as both parents contribute to its upbringing and yes, I’ll take care of mine so respect his privacy.

    By fedup

    September 4, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

    To GeorgiaNoMore…you are sooo correct! Well said!

    By steverino

    September 4, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

    Freedom without responsibility is chaos. Did Van really quote a 1976 speech His Eminence the Most Reverend Philip (Saliba), the Archbishop of New York and Metropolitan of All North America, which is the leadership position for the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America? Or was it a serendipitious happenstance? Was it syncronicity? Or was it merely the old idea that monkeys in a basement banging on typewriters will eventually put letters together that make sense?

    By jct

    September 4, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

    Debbie - you state that you know men who have been married more than twice and have 3+ plus from each marriage.

    I think you proved my point on the woman taking responsibility for their actions. I understand in the world we live in today that there will be blended/step families. However, if a man has 3 children from previous relationships, how is he taking care of them? Is he paying child support? Does he insist on fair and equitable visitation? Is he willing to interupt his plans because said children are sick or other emergency comes up?

    This is something the woman who dates men with children should be asking. Beyond asking the woman should be looking at his behaviors with her two eyes. Most people don’t dramatically change their behavior; they only become more of who they already are.

    How come these men keep finding women to marry them? You can only be responsible for yourself. They could not make babies if women stopped sleeping with them.

    By harold

    September 4, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this

    Hmm. Perhaps you should explain the part to Harold where sex education claimbs that breeding results in higher wealth. Because it doesn’t. Children make people poor AND stupid, and then the children turn out just as poor and stupid as their parents so there’s really no point other than wasting resources. And yeah, if two dudes in neighboring stalls become very close neighbors, there is no risk of creating any offpsring. ZERO risk. That’s why conservative men give hand jobs to each other in bathrooms and parks! they dont want a paternity suit from some idiot girlfriend

    By DebbieDoRight

    September 4, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

    Why won’t men get VASECTOMIES?

    Why is that such a scary word? If they don’t wanna be a baby daddy, then get a VASECTOMY.

    Don’t wanna pay child support for anymore kids, get a VASECTOMY.

    Don’t wanna be “trapped” by your girlfriend, get a VASECTOMY.

    What’s so scary about that?

    By No Laughing Matter

    September 4, 2007 12:59 PM | Link to this

    I agree with Steverino. If Van hit the nail on the head, it’s because he was aiming for his thumb and missed.

    By Screwy Wabbit

    September 4, 2007 1:00 PM | Link to this

    DebbiedoRight of the Mounties (I hope), Fear of Vasectomies can be best explained by this cartoon:

    Before Vasectomy: <=====3

    After Vasectomy: <=3

    See the prob? We men have enough trouble staying off viagra without medieval torture techniques ruining our libido and id and stuff.

    By ????

    September 4, 2007 1:03 PM | Link to this

    at Dawgontruth… If the whites would he just and fair, they would pay blacks slave reparations and we could use that money for child support and then get a job. It’s racist people like you who make society what it is today….Slavery has nothing to do with you being a deadbeat. Sounds to me you are like every other lazy bum, you want the taxpayers to pay your way through life because you are too sorry to take care of yourself or your children.

    By van's a nose picker

    September 4, 2007 1:14 PM | Link to this

    Van lives vicariously through Neal Boortz.

    By Screwy Wabbit

    September 4, 2007 1:17 PM | Link to this

    Just when we were all convinced that the porn-again Right would crack down on their pork, they “wood” their cracks down on porcelain.

    Is that like a palindrome wrapped inside an acronym stuffed in a anagram locked within a haiku?

    By Jackie

    September 4, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

    It seems the statistics being cited are not a valid indicator of life and society today. Statistics have shown that 50% of married women cheat and 80% of married men do likewise. Does that mean some of these men and women have children that don’t belong to the spouse? What is to be done about that? If an adult is not married and chooses to have children, is it our business to whisper and point about their lack of nuptials? Can these folks raise their children and be happy in doing so? Are these same people financially responsible? If so, what is the problem?

    By DebbieDoRight

    September 4, 2007 1:27 PM | Link to this

    How come these men keep finding women to marry them? You can only be responsible for yourself. They could not make babies if women stopped sleeping with them.

    jct: I can only speak from my own perspective. My husband has been married before with one child from the previous marriage. When we got together and decided to get married, the first thing I asked him was if he wanted anymore children, if he would’ve said NO, I would not have married him. PERIOD.

    Now, what could a woman do to ensure that she’s not marrying a dead beat dad? Talk to his family, perhaps that’ll work, though some parents think their children can do no wrong, its always someone else’s fault, (good exapmple of this is Ted Bundy’s mother who swore up and down, until the day that Ted confessed, that her son was not a killer); a woman can probably ask the man’s ex, but you now how that may go. A woman could probably ask the child, but children see things differently through different eyes than the adults involved.

    It’s not like there’s a National Dead Beat Dad Hotline to know if the guy you’re marrying is honest in his dealings with his other children/ ex-wives. What can you check out? His face may be one way when he’s with you but another when you’re not arround. So how could a woman protect herself? Unless you know every state the man has children in and can check their records, you’ll never be 100% sure — it’s all up to chance.

    Why would a man marry a woman of child bearing age when he already knows that he doesn’t want any children; and he might suspect that she does? Men marry more than once because they like the institution of marriage. They like having a wife to cater to them, pick up their clothes, worry about their health, etc.

    Why do you continue to blame the woman exclusively and negate to do the same thing for the man? Why is he totally blameless in the matter? Men CHOOSE to have children just as well as women do. If a man doesn’t want a child, he can always get a vasectomy or wear two condoms if necessary; by not doing so he is CHOOSING to have children with everyone he lays down with. That’s the price he pays for his bad decisions.

    By Bob

    September 4, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this

    I agree that dead beat dads need to pay up, but I also know a young woman who works where I do who has health insurance for her (she does have to pay some) She is single and has two babies from two different men. Taxpayers are paying for the kids’ trips to the doctor.

    I know another mother who has a couple of kids. She’s had breast enhancement surgery AND taxpayers are paying for her kids trips to the doctor.

    There’s something not fair about that.

    By Sick and Tired

    September 4, 2007 1:39 PM | Link to this

    You straight people make me sick some times. First you tell us that marriage between two men is sick and depraved but you all have no problem going out getting married and divorced many times over and when you are not doing that, bd babies everywhere. You have no problem asking us for more tax dollars to support your little bds though. More tax money for schools, more tax money for WIC, food stamps, housing, daycare, and other welfare entitlements. Meanwhile we are paying your taxes while you all are getting tax credits for children. Where is the sense in that? If you have kids you are using more resources and should be taxed more. But of course what can I do except just sit here and take it while you all have more and more b*d babies and eat up more and more of my paycheck!

    By JJ

    September 4, 2007 1:41 PM | Link to this

    Bob I don’t understand your first comment. If the woman has health insurance and is paying for it, how are the taxpayers paying for her kids to visit the doctor? And what does having two kids with two different men have to do with it?

    By harold

    September 4, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this

    So if If it isn’t natural, then it must be artificial, eh? If you want to see unnatural go to the zoo. You can see monkeys masterbaiting and getting each other in the butt any time they are not sleeping. No gay rights peer pressure pressured them into it either. Its completely natural to stick it anywhere it’ll go. Society is what pressures ment to do otherwise, to restrain that. monogonism beteween a man and a woman is whats artificial!!!

    By JJ

    September 4, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this

    DebbieDoRight - AMEN!!!!

    Thank you for saying what I have been having a hard time saying…..

    By Cammi

    September 4, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this

    The comment about referring to someone’s child as “the little b**” is going a bit too far. Why would you want a child growing up being referred to that way? He or she did not ask to be brought into this world and they certainly do not deserved to punished for the sins of the parents. That’s just cruel and heartless.

    By jct

    September 4, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this

    @Debbie,

    I went back and read my posts and don’t see where I blamed anyone. There is a big difference between being responsible for your actions and blaming someone else for your actions.

    I stated I believe in contraception for men. I also stated that our reality includes blended and step families. I am also am in a relationship where I have a blended family.

    I don’t believe there is a full proof way to know if the man in question will do right by a child you both choose to bring into the world. I think we both agree on this point.

    My bigger point is when behaviors that will be detrimental to your future happiness and income generation are clearly visible but you choose to stay with that man that you must then take responsibility for that action.

    An illustration to make my point, I dated a man with 1 child about 17 years ago. He had this child when he was a teenage. While dating him, when appropriate, I met his teenage daughter. I watch their interactions closely. I would query him about the status of his child support. I did my very best to make sure I did not make plans when I knew his daughter had school events so not to create a conflict. What I saw is that he still missed events. After about 7 months, I started to realize that he would pay his child support late. It had become a habit. I also saw that he was missing his daughters school events. On month 8, I choose to end that relationship. I am in contact with his daughter even after all this time has passed. I helped her fill out college applications. Attended her children’s baby showers. Her mother and I get along great because I never tried to be her mother. I just was another source of adult information that she could tap into.

    Now back to the point, I saw that this man was not going to change. It is not my job to change anyone. I took responsibility for what I wanted in the future. I was in a dead end relationship.

    I think our biggest difference is where you place the responsiblity.

    I agree with you that both have a responsibility. That is what is missing most today. Personal responsibility. Ask most teenagers (heck, even adults) the definition and they would have no clue.

    Telling someone that they are responsible for choices s/he makes is not blaming. Just reality. Everyone has to be responsible for her/his actions.

    By b.o.o.h.o.o.

    September 4, 2007 2:07 PM | Link to this

    marriage doesn’t reduce poverty. Even if it does, it doesn’t necessarily increase anyone’s productivity or happiness, including kids. Many women/kids are fortunate not to have the man responsible involved in their lives. Blanket comments like “marriage reduces poverty” don’t take into account spousal or child abuse, and the fact that just because someone is male, doesn’t mean he is a “good provider”. What’s missing is: reproductive education, access to birth control and abortion, child development education, and ENFORCED CHILD SUPPORT!!! If single women and their children live in poverty, it is partly because the men involved are not even paying child support - which in many cases is the best thing they can do for the situation. Forcing women to marry the men who father their children is not the answer.

    By dawg_gone_truth

    September 4, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this

    Dems You are a racist, and yeah slavery do have a say in todays culture. Blacks aint really been free but since the 60’s when the great civil rights leaders like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharton, Martin fought for equality. Slave reparations scare you cause you like this country that the black man built for you. Like I said the white judges knows before he says anything that you is guilty, no matter if my babies momma had another man or not and he is going to make me pay so much I can’t live. God forbid your babies momma be a white woman, then you is going to pay or go to jail. So I got little choice I pay the white woman her money and I let the others go, cause that is what I got to do. Sex education, I know what I’m doing, thank you. You know full well that Bush tells the condom company to make the condoms that they sell in the poor neighborhoods inferior to the ones they sell to white folks, so they keep breaking. the truth is out there open your eyes and see.

    By jct

    September 4, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this

    Not only do you have to be responsible for your actions but there are consequences.

    I can choose to drive drunk and kill someone. That choice will put me in jail.

    By red

    September 4, 2007 2:29 PM | Link to this

    stop all money/benefits going to women with the illegitimate babies. As soon as word of that gets out, there wont be anymore babies coming from unwed women. Guaranteed!!

    By deegee

    September 4, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this

    Marriage reduces poverty in the same way that a gastric bypass reduces obesity. It doesn’t always work, in some cases it does more harm than good and you sure can’t make everybody get one. You can get at the root cause of obesity just as you can get at the root cause of children having children. Teenage girls have children because they want a baby to love. They don’t particularly want a screaming two-year-old with a temper, and that’s generally when things start to go bad. At risk pre-teenage girls need to be adopted and mentored via community outreach programs. If you can keep them busy and give them hope for their future they won’t be so tempted to fall for the player that makes them feel wanted for a few brief minutes.

    Marriage isn’t going to stop poverty. Education and the desire to succeed in life will stop poverty. Waiting to have children will help young men and women get the education they need to make money, and the maturity they need to raise their children.

    By Screwy Wabbit

    September 4, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this

    Just when we all thought that the porn-again Right would crack down on their pork, they “wood” their cracks right down on the porcelain.

    That’s why it’s gonna be a lib landslide in ‘08.

    By Shar

    September 4, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this

    Mr. Wooten has brought up so many different points today that I am not sure where he stands on some of them.

    His main topic seems to be what jbmlaw adroitly called “pre-emptive disqualification”, which I agree is a significant barrier to public policy across a wide spectrum of issues. I disagree, however, with the supposition that Mr. Bloomberg’s comments on divorced fathers are disqualified because he is one. Why does that not make him more of an authority? Granted, he wouldn’t have a problem making his child support payments (assuming that he is not in the deadbeat category), but he is still in a strong position to speak on the issue. Why does Mr. Wooten assume that his experience makes him questionable?

    Much more questionable, to my mind, is the statement that “the government should take steps to get them back with their families.” That sounds far too Orwellian for my taste. Mr. Wooten’s admiration for the idea that “The EITC should be a catalyst for fathers to fulfill their obligations as responsible spouses, parents and citizens” is at odds with his usual objection to the Nanny State. The catalyst for fathers to fulfill obligations should surely be love and consideration for the wellbeing of their children, not a tax break. And is attempted enforcement of a particular moral code an appropriate use of tax law?

    The most important contributions of a father to his children are unconditional love, guidance, role modeling and protection. Financial support is very important as well, but there are plenty of people who cherish their relationships with a loving, responsible but financially strapped father. If the father is unable or unwilling to provide these critical intangibles, or if the parents behave like two cats in a bag, the child is not better off in a two parent household.

    A child is, of course, always better off out of poverty. The welfare system was supposed to keep children from that fate, but it has been criticized for enabling parental irresponsibility. Asking the protection of taxpayers for a child is not unreasonable unless the person most responsible is failing to make sacrifices and effort on their own. I agree that women and men with children on welfare should be required to show proof of birth control, just as self-supporters have to stop having babies when they are unaffordable. When divorced parents re-marry others, perhaps they should be required to post personal bonds to cover a specified period of child support payments, so their existing children are protected before any additional children are created. Employers who pay absconding parents under the table to avoid detection could be made liable for missed support payments, making that kind of transaction much less appealing. The self-denial and sacrifice made by devoted, custodial parents is not too much to ask of those who need public assistance. And that assistance, as noted by No Child Support above, needs to be restructured to support responsible self-sufficiency.

    Surely the most cogent post today was from fedup@9:59, “Much credit in all races should be given to a family man. He is one to be admired, for he has put his wife, and children before himself.” No government policy or tax break will force anyone to make that simple, monumental choice, whether within a marriage or outside of one. If Mr. Bloomberg cared for his children and devoted himself to all of his paternal roles, he should be able to speak on this issue as an honorable, experienced and responsible adult.

    By ????

    September 4, 2007 2:48 PM | Link to this

    dawggonetruth Now I know you didn’t call me a racist. I never said one thing that cannot be proven. You cannot argue with a fact. And I would be willing to bet you yourself have never been a victim of slavery…. you probably weren’t even alive or very old during the 60s. I will say this you must have eaten a big slice of dumb-a* for breakfast. You should have spent more time getting an education than running the streets and you probably wouldn’t have the problem you are having now. But that is your problem not mine or anyone elses. Maybe it just seems like white men aren’t in the spotlight as much as black men, but that is not the case, white men just don’t go around airing there dirty laundry and crying poor me, slavery did this to me, if the whites would have to pay reparations, etc. Grow up and get a job and take care of your children.

    By DebbieDoRight

    September 4, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this

    My bigger point is when behaviors that will be detrimental to your future happiness and income generation are clearly visible but you choose to stay with that man that you must then take responsibility for that action.

    jct: OK when I made the comment about you “blaming the woman exclusively”, the above ^^ is one of the reasons why I made the comment.

    The comment is said specifically to the woman, not the man. God made women perfect. We are emotional whereas men are not, we are competent, warriors, fierce fighters, and helpmates. We can deal with pain better, do more than one thing at one time and we have a sense of direction. OK where am I going with this train of thought? It’s just to say that women think with their hearts 8 out of 10 times. That’s the way we’re made. We sometimes make bad decisions that defy logic because we’re making them with our hearts and not our heads.

    I have seen so many talk shows where the man has beaten the woman, abused her mentally, emotionally, financially, etc. and the woman sticks by that man time and time again. Why? “Because she loves him”.

    Songs of women suffering through dysfunctional relationships abound in our society, (Stand by your man, Do Right Woman, If I were Your Woman); women are expected to take anything a man brings AND still love him and help him to make his way in the world. What do Betty Broaderick, Mary Winkler and Myra Morton have in common? On the outside they were everything they were told they were supposed to be, subservient to their husbands, bowing to his needs first, a good wife and mother; but on the inside, they were sick and tired of their husband’s sh#t. Ooops I got off the point.

    OK the point is that YES we women are sometimes blind when it comes to men; that’s our excuse for sometimes picking the wrong man, but what is the MAN’s excuse for abandoning his child? If a woman abandoned her child, what would she be called?

    By @@

    September 4, 2007 2:52 PM | Link to this

    DebbieDoRight:

    I’m not arguing women’s rights per se.

    What accompanied the sexual revolution of the 60’s? Women’s rights, and within those rights there existed sexual freedom for women. We’ve been had Debs.

    The man has gotten away with irresponsibility and degenerate behavior for too long; they have an obligation to take care of their child. PERIOD.

    I agree, but how to accomplish that is another question altogether. See my “root vegetable” and “bloodless turnip” post @ 10:37.

    The cost of pursuing child support through enforcement and the court system would diminish resources available that could actually serve the immediate needs of the child.

    I want to know what about the MEN? What about regulating their procreation rights?

    Snip the turnip? Extreme! Pursue him into the poor house? Defeats the intended purpose.

    I know, personally, a few men who have been married more than twice with at least 3 kids each from each marriage.

    True! Again, see my “turnip” reference and avoid that “produce stand” cause “the vegetables” are rotten there.

    Why can’t men be held to the same social morals and mores as women? Why are men the studs and women the slts?*

    Now here is where I’ll get into the theory of evolution and I think you and I can agree on this one.

    **SOME MEN HAVE NOT YET REACHED THE EVOLUTIONARY STAGE THAT WOMEN HAVE.”

    Political Foreskin is a prime example. Just the mention or any inference to sex and his other/bigger brain becomes disengaged and it’s “Katie” bar the door.

    I adore men Debbie. They possess qualities that we women don’t. They are risk takers by nature. Taking risks can often times produce amazing results. Isn’t it a shame that they don’t find their own children amazing and worthy of their support.

    As women, let’s keep our knees together and we can rule the world with the “power” we hold over men.

    Never under estimate the power that a devoted father will have on our daughters. A daughter’s self-worth is seen in the eyes of a caring Dad. No amount of money can replace that.

    By june_baby

    September 4, 2007 2:53 PM | Link to this

    i know i will be pulverized for these comments,but never-the-less, i will say them. PREGNANCIES DON’T HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT. there are too many ways to prevent pregnancy for it to be accidental. 1) abstinence, 2)condoms, 3)birth control pills, 4)patch, 5)morning after pills(this one seems to be a no brainer), 6)b.c pills for men, 7)abortion(last resort), etc. with all these preventative measures, why would anyone unwittingly become pregnant? regardless of a woman’s economic status, there seems to be something there that fits everyone. i look forward to someone enlightening me about these comments.

    By Ghost

    September 4, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this

    I know a lesbian who makes 6 figures and she’s pretty smart. She also happens to be pregnant and doens’t have a partner. OMIGOSH!

    Is her child destined to poverty or do you advocate her getting married too to prevent it?

    The “every parent should be married” argument doesn’t work in all cases. But you won’t get the neocons to see that.

    All marriage does is make people miserable. And I can say that because I’m married. LOL

    By GEICO caveman on faux CNN

    September 4, 2007 3:00 PM | Link to this

    “There is a solution out there, but it’s complex and requires in-depth analysis of mined data across a spectrum of socio-cultural demographics. The solution will require local involvement of community leaders and schools and churches in a united program where individual egos give way to the needs of the impoverished, disenfranchised, and fatherless children.”

    Yeah, I have a response. Uh, what?

    By Staceye

    September 4, 2007 3:00 PM | Link to this

    June_Baby I cosign that. You are right. It’s pure negligence, laziness, and sheer stupidity!

    By Staceye

    September 4, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this

    Ghost as I stated…if that woman is financially able to raise her child without any of my tax dollars..then so be it. If that child will never go hungry, homeless or naked or without love….by all means, be like Nike and just do it! It takes more than love to raise a child..some people can’t seem to come to grips with that fact!

    By Screwy Wabbit

    September 4, 2007 3:08 PM | Link to this

    shar seems to have a reading comprehension problem, but dont feel bad, 90% of the bloggers here either dont read Wooten’s blog before they post, (and you can tell because they go over ground he covered and they get it wrong), or they misunderstand what Wooten wrote, (the most common of the sins of the bloggers).

    You got wooten wrong, but kudos for reading it!

    How about that one blogger here with all that material, eh? Who is that guy? Wow! I havent’ seen that much tongue in cheeking since Sen Craig mimed his intentions in Minneapolis.

    By @@

    September 4, 2007 3:09 PM | Link to this

    Oh, almost forgot! As to the abortion issue. I will not actively seek to overturn an existing law but it’s important to note that abortion is sending a clear and distinct message to our children.

    They are disposable.

    So is it any wonder why the value of a child has been diminished in the eyes of those who produce them but see no value in fathering them?

    Sad…sad…sad.

    Very VERY sad.

    By dawg_gone_truth

    September 4, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this

    ????? Yeah slavery did have a impact on my lifestyle today. Look at the statistics and test scores and compare schools with heavy black populations to the schools with heavy white populations. No its not a crutch but it is a fact of life, schools are just now getting to where its equal, and I said getting to, not there yet. White men are not scutinized like black men, why? if not racism you tell me why? I can go to any north Georgia trailer park and show you gangs, drug dealers, men living irresponsibly, and unwed mothers, just like you see in the ghetto, why don’t we see that pointed out? Racism. Do I ever expect to be repaid for the blood my ancestors spilled? No, but I like to bring it up becasue its owed to us. Like it or not.

    By married women

    September 4, 2007 3:28 PM | Link to this

    Good job Tomb and Redneck. I agree with you and I am a black women. I have a successful marriage of almost 30 yrs with the father of my childrens. The men and women of todays society have no ideal what morals are. The silly women lay down with anything with a pulse and expect for the taxpayers to pay for their decisions. That’s crazy!!!

    By married women

    September 4, 2007 3:30 PM | Link to this

    Good job Tomb and Redneck. I agree with you and I am a black women. I have a successful marriage of almost 30 yrs with the father of my childrens. The men and women of todays society have no ideal what morals are. The silly women lay down with anything with a pulse and expect for the taxpayers to pay for their decisions. That’s crazy!!!

    By married women

    September 4, 2007 3:30 PM | Link to this

    Good job Tomb and Redneck. I agree with you and I am a black women. I have a successful marriage of almost 30 yrs with the father of my childrens. The men and women of todays society have no ideal what morals are. The silly women lay down with anything with a pulse and expect for the taxpayers to pay for their decisions. That’s crazy!!!

    By Dusty

    September 4, 2007 3:41 PM | Link to this

    Hmm Jim Wooten, do we HAVE to discuss out-of-wedlock births? I guess my own views are not all together on this one.

    First—individual freedom. How do we tell citizens what to do in their private life without infringing on their rights? OK??

    But then, I don’t want to pay for someone’s rights when they dump the cost of their choices on me? Uhoh!! Welfare!!

    Refuse to pay the mother’s expenses and you come up with a destitute baby! That’s awful!!

    Make the dad pay? He’s in jail or Timbuktoo or rehab and he never heard of that “mama”. Trouble & cost!!

    Morality and concern? Mom & Pop never heard of that and it is none of your business and your fault to start with because you didn’t give Pop a job as CEO of a big company. Now you want to “shove” religion down their throats. It’s YOUR FAULT not theirs. So there!!

    Abortion?? Uh oh. Protest march!! No help!!

    So who needs marriage when movie stars show us every day you can have live-ins and oodles of kids without marriage and show the world that you are “Free! Free! Born to be FREE!” and smile for the camera. Showtime!!!

    So you see, Jim, I’d rather not discuss out-of-wedlock births (poor babies), It can run you out-of-your mind looking for solutions and I don’t have one.

    Second

    By jct

    September 4, 2007 3:42 PM | Link to this

    Debbie,

    Any parent who abandons the responsibility of raising their child is a COWARD (Of course there is the exception for adoption. My step son is adopted and I would not give him away to save me life.

    I have not once taken up that these so called men are getting off the hook.

    I know they don’t. I have watched friends not take care of nor visit their once absent but known parent when they are elderly, sickly and dying.

    Parents (male or female) who choose not to be part of their child(ren) lives meet the Karma train when they are no longer able to care for themselves.

    Let me also put this in a different way so that I am not ‘blaming women.’ Men who choose to make babies all over the place with different women should be responsible for their actions. They should be responsible for emotional and financial stablity of the child(ren). You should be responsible for making sure through proper birth control usage in not creating anymore children.

    It’s all still personal responsibility.

    By timetopissontheneoconscumandotherrepubicsublifeforms

    September 4, 2007 3:42 PM | Link to this

    The Russians are encouraging out of wed lock births. Why do we not just send all the unwanted post sex by-products to Moscow? It could be our biggest export to Russia. If Ivan pays say 10k per kid, the Father should get half, and the maw the other half. Each must pay for their own health care out of their respective half, of course.

    By ????

    September 4, 2007 3:53 PM | Link to this

    dawggonetruth Because bringing it up doesn’t change anything. When will YOU and all BLACK MEN and women alike learn that you control your future, your past doesn’t. You and only you pick your destiny. White men and women are scrutinized just as much as black folks are, sometimes they are better at getting away with their crimes, but that is only the rich white folk. The rest of us have just as many hardships and burdens as anyone else, we are looked down on too. I know I have been there and I have been scrutinized heavily, for being a divorcee with 2 children. I should have stayed in a marriage that was going nowhere and be unhappy for the rest of my life for the sake of my kids…. I think not. I have faired pretty well, but I chose to overcome my obstacles, not whine about them. I was poor growing up, but I chose to be a harder worker than my parents were and make better decisions than they did, all I am saying is thay you can do the same if you choose to. It just seems that rather than overcome your problems you want to whine about how they came about. ONLY you can make yourself a better person. YOU don’t have to let the past mold your future, you choose to let the past mold your future.

    By Ceez

    September 4, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this

    Great column! “CJKatl”- This is an issue that we definitely need to address. It’s not about a white middle-age Christian man’s opinion that men should marry their baby mama. He’s trying to get you out of that Ghetto Crap, where the baby-mama and absent fathers are not an option! You seem as though you could be one of those people knee deep into civil rights (in 2007) the way you felt the need to mention his race etc. Get over the fact that he is addressing an issue that is not as prevalent within his race! WHO CARES! Truth is truth! GET OVER IT! I think more people should step up and address this issue no matter what race they are. Some of you are still missing the point though! His article was not trying to convey “marriage” as a cure all. He is simply saying that fathers are needed in the home and marriage decreases poverty (obviously, with a double income) Quit blaming everything on environment, disparities, “socio-economics,” or whatever else. WE NEED TO TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY! Fathers need to take personal responsibility for their families. Women need to raise their standards as to what they will and will not accept. For example, a man who is not willing to commit to covenant before he lays with you to have your kids and vice versa should still be considered UNACCEPTABLE! Even though our culture says otherwise!

    By Smitty

    September 4, 2007 4:00 PM | Link to this

    So *dawg_gone_truth * You feel you are owed huh? For what? What have you done in your life that you could possibly be owed for? Took responsibility for your own actions? No. Gotten a job? No. Waited for the government to assist you? YES.

    Typical, typical, “I’m black, therefore you owe me big”. Do you even know if your ancestors were slaves, or just by being black you feel you are entitled to money from the government, for something that happened well over 150 YEARS ago???

    Grow up, get a job, and make your own way in this world like the rest of the adults!!! Quit making excuses, and waiting for someone to help you out of your mess.

    By ????

    September 4, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this

    By Ceez

    Amen, you said exactly what I was trying to say to dawg-gone-right, I think he/she took it personal, but you are right on the money. Who cares what race you are, this is a human problem and we are all a part of the human race.

    By Hunni

    September 4, 2007 4:18 PM | Link to this

    ???? As a black woman, I understand where you’re coming from…but there are plenty of successful black mothers with great lives and careers. What I get so sick of is being labeled simply because I am a black female. I was married when I became pregnant. I have 2 degrees and am working on my masters and CPA…and no I did not get into school as a charity case. I am in the process of a divorce and I am a mother of 1. My child is an A student in school, not a hoodlum.

    You can’t judge someone’s status in life by skin color.

    Why are black people constantly under attack and having to prove themselves because many people choose to believe stereotypes rather than getting to know black people as individuals?

    By dawg_gone_truth

    September 4, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this

    smitty You have no clue brother, you got some issues with stereotypes. I think maybe ????, Harold, Debbie, Dusty and maybe a few others know that I am on this blog fighting for justice all the time. I duped you, dude, I’m a white guy with a house, wife two kids and a dog and cat. I go to work everyday, make a good living, and live by the rules. Or I could be what you think I am because of my political views, you don’t know me I could be the guy next door to you, maybe I am black but you are not sure you just assume, you sir are troubled, I have a political view, and at least people like mentioned above respect my views and debate me without the aggresion you exhibited. I enjoy a good debate and poking fun but you took it too far, with you rant.

    By @@

    September 4, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this

    ????: Stop posting to yourself, moron.

    By Voice from the Ghetto

    September 4, 2007 4:23 PM | Link to this

    Well, it’s clear that few of you have ever lived among the people to whom you are referring. That used to be true of me when I lived in the rich, white north Atlanta suburbs. A few hours feeding the homeless and I thought I was an expert on welfare and saving people from the terrible cycle.

    For a number of complicated reasons, I now live among those people. My neighbor is a single prostitute on welfare who has four small children and a drug lord for a boyfriend. The kids think he’s cool because he drives a brand-new pimped out truck and buys them stuff they could never afford otherwise. They don’t know any doctors or lawyers, or even anyone who holds a real job except me—and I’m a curiosity to them, not something they think they’ll ever acheive. They live in one of the best elementary school districts in the city of Atlanta, but their “teachers” are the only ones they see with money.

    My wife works at a local bank branch, where the average person who comes in cannot understand the difference between a checking and savings account, or how to use a debit card. They don’t understand even the most basic of concepts.

    The most startling truth I’ve learned living here is that we (those of average intelligence) grossly overestimate the ability of the underprivileged to exit their circumstances. They are in a catch-22 situation.

    I don’t pretend to have the solution, but it’s clear to me that it cannot be discerned from the lofty position of one looking down upon the other. It requires the perspective of one who has spent years in the trenches.

    By Voice from the Ghetto

    September 4, 2007 4:25 PM | Link to this

    Well, it’s clear that few of you have ever lived among the people to whom you are referring. That used to be true of me when I lived in the rich, white north Atlanta suburbs. A few hours feeding the homeless and I thought I was an expert on welfare and saving people from the terrible cycle.

    For a number of complicated reasons, I now live among those people. My neighbor is a single prostitute on welfare who has four small children and a drug lord for a boyfriend. The kids think he’s cool because he drives a brand-new pimped out truck and buys them stuff they could never afford otherwise. They don’t know any doctors or lawyers, or even anyone who holds a real job except me—and I’m a curiosity to them, not something they think they’ll ever acheive. They live in one of the best elementary school districts in the city of Atlanta, but their “teachers” are the only ones they see with money.

    My wife works at a local bank branch, where the average person who comes in cannot understand the difference between a checking and savings account, or how to use a debit card. They don’t understand even the most basic of concepts.

    The most startling truth I’ve learned living here is that we (those of average intelligence) grossly overestimate the ability of the underprivileged to exit their circumstances. They are in a catch-22 situation.

    I don’t pretend to have the solution, but it’s clear to me that it cannot be discerned from the lofty position of one looking down upon the other. It requires the perspective of one who has spent years in the trenches.

    By DebbieDoRight

    September 4, 2007 4:26 PM | Link to this

    Now here is where I’ll get into the theory of evolution and I think you and I can agree on this one. SOME MEN HAVE NOT YET REACHED THE EVOLUTIONARY STAGE THAT WOMEN HAVE.”

    LMAO!!! Too funny!!

    By @@ .

    September 4, 2007 4:28 PM | Link to this

    You tell ‘em, dawgonetruth!!!!

    You rock, sir!

    By Bill

    September 4, 2007 4:36 PM | Link to this

    Takes two to tango!

    By dawg_gone_truth

    September 4, 2007 4:45 PM | Link to this

    Harold dude you scare me sometimes, whatever happened with your campaign of “no cars on peachtree by 2012”? I’m on that bandwagon. BTW you got any daughters about 30 yrs old?

    By DebbieDoRight

    September 4, 2007 4:55 PM | Link to this

    Hunni: OFF SUBJECT Being a black female myself I have found that there are more emphasis put on race here in the South than in any other part of the country. That’s to be expected given the South’s rich history. However, I do feel that a lot of problems that some black women face are brougt on by themselves.

    Black women have a great capacity to love, to give fully, and to be strong in adversity; so why can’t we smile sometimes?! Is it against the rules here in the south or what?

    I have passed black women on the street and spoke to them, and they look at me like I was just with their boyfriends!! Why the attitude? Why all the walls built up around us, so thick and so high that no one can get over or through them?

    I admit, I was brought up on the West coast on a military installation so I am somewhat perplexed by the attitudes of some black women here in Atlanta; but shouldn’t we, as black women, show the world our positive sides more? Why must there be some sort of litmus test before we feel comfortable enough to let someone in?

    Your thoughts and comments on this would be appreciated.

    By The Real @@

    September 4, 2007 5:05 PM | Link to this

    Howzabout…

    By @@ September 4, 2007 4:19

    ????: Stop posting to yourself, moron.

    By @@ September 4, 2007 4:28 PM

    You tell ‘em, dawgonetruth!!!!

    You rock, sir!

    you don’t post in my name PoliFore.

    Self-restraint and blog ethics…practice it pervert or stick a condum on your head and suffocate yourself.

    By Hunni

    September 4, 2007 5:18 PM | Link to this

    Debbiedoright,

    Hey I was in the military as well and spent a year in CA…Presidio of Monterey. :)

    I agree that some women’s attitudes tend to turn people off. I am a naturally friendly person and I too have encountered women (of different races) who act it would kill them to respond to a simple hello. Unfortunately, there are black women who tend to take the ‘neck swinging’ attitude to extreme and we all get labeled. I think for the most part it could be a defense mechanicism and some woman put a wall up to try protect their feelings from getting hurt. I have women in my family like that. But all I can do is to continue being myself. I can’t change others attitudes and it’s a waste of time to try.

    By @@ .

    September 4, 2007 5:21 PM | Link to this

    What if I posted like a moron and nobody read me?

    Wait, that IS what always happens, duhhhhhh.

    By Jackie

    September 4, 2007 5:32 PM | Link to this

    @Dusty,

    Well thought prose and concise articulation. Didn’t know conservatives thought outside the abortion sandbox. CONGRATS TO YOU!!!!!!

    By JohnD

    September 4, 2007 5:59 PM | Link to this

    Enticing a man with tax breaks to marry and raise the children he sires is as crazy as some law to force him to do so.

    Unfortunately the women are much stronger than men give them credit for being and are able to judge the quality of those with whom they take the chance on pregnancy. Also unfortunate that women often fail to use their powers of judgement.

    Which is worse, a home with no father present or a home with a father devoid of parenting skills and lacking in the desire to learn?

    The problem may be more prevalent in Black society but this is hardly a race issue. This is an issue our entire nation must face and seek to rectify throughout society.

    The immediate gratification syndrome must be eliminated; whether sex, food, money, status or recognition.

    We now have huge numbers of children born out of wedlock, an obesity problem, icon status applied to people with money whether honestly earned or not and public recognition given to individuals our grandparents would have considered trash for the language they use and the activities they encourage.

    Were our grandparents wrong? I think not.

    The old standards of hard work, education and earning your own way must become the measure of success and manhood.

    Fathering a child by several women is not manhood - not fathering children you cannot or have no intention of supporting is a display of manhood.

    Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda are fools, just as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are fools. False prophets and phony self-proclaimed leaders are all those four have proved to be.

    What then does that make those who follow them?

    By MenAreWorthless

    September 4, 2007 6:10 PM | Link to this

    If a man is so trifling as to shirk his responsibility as a father, abandoning his children and their mother, how does this make him marriage material?

    Women and their children could have a far better existence without such men in their lives. It’s toll enough on the single woman to have to financially care for her children, if she marries the deadbeat, she’ll have another mouth to feed - HIS!

    Nothing in this world will change for the better until men are held accountable for their actions, like women for centuries have been. And until we figure out how to make men behave as men, women will have to continue to be the ‘man’ they can’t find.

    By candide

    September 5, 2007 9:43 AM | Link to this

    Everytime I see a woman with a young child I look to see whether she wears a wedding ring. Most of the time if the woman is black or Hispanic she is not wearing a wedding ring. I guess wedding rings are too expensive for them!

    A black or Hispanic would regard my comment as racist. Sometimes racism is a necessary reaction to incompetence, immorality, or just plain laziness.

    Everyone needs a Super Ego. Blacks particularly seem to lack one.

    Commenting is open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. M-F

    Post a comment



    Remember me?

    You may use the following formatting:
    Bold: **this text will be bolded** = this text will be bolded
    Italic: *this text will be italic* = this text will be italic
    Link: [text to be linked](http://www.ajc.com) = text to be linked



    There will be a delay of up to 5 minutes before your comment appears.


    *HTML not allowed in comments. Your e-mail address is required.

     

    Do Good Locally » Find nonprofit causes near you

    Find more causes » List your nonprofit

    Kudzu Services » Find the right people for the job