Post: #1

I apologize in advance for not matching 2Wycked's writing talents (that guy is a serious genius or something - mean that sincerely).

I am watching Now with Alex Wagner on MSNBC and they are discussing why so many households are being headed up by single moms, or why so many are now the primary or majority breadwinner (recent Pew Research claim), etc. Women are now the sole or primary source of family income in 40% of U.S. households with children.

Here is a Fox clip on the Rachel Maddow Blog where they are saying that having a women as the primary earner is bad for kids and families.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/0...nder-roles

Melissa Harris Perry on the Alex Wagner is arguing that the conservatives have pushed their agenda and forced single mothers that are poor to work even if they have kids (welfare reform in the 90s) and that it is only the privilege of married middle class families to have a mother stay at home. Now, I don't always get her logic because a lot of it is racially driven. And I am not a SWM so I can't be called a cracker.

Melissa is also saying it would be fair if public policy underwrote the ability for poor women to stay at home with their kids. While I am ok with Obamacare, because too many people suffer huge financial difficulties from medical issues. I won't go into fat people who don't watch their weight, etc. Too big of a topic, I just think people shouldn't have to worry about dying from being unable to afford health care. However, popping out babies without being able to provide is a different topic.

Sort of annoyed that she thinks it is good for public policy to underwrite poor moms to stay with their kids (she said that). I am generalizing (and I apologize to those of you who had a single mom and did a great job with you - not trying to be insulting - my parents were poor and did a great job but they were committed for the long term), but it seems to me a single poor mom would most likely would not do a great job of raising her kid.

Now I am not sure what percentage of the population of women were married and then became single. That would have a different set of implications on what I am about to say.

But my point is, if you don't have the kid, you might not create the economic hardships that you are now facing. So if you are single, don't get pregnant. Don't get me wrong, I would like kids some day, I have nothing against them and love my nephews to death. I am just saying, that we always seem to want to be able to have it all. Some of these hardships are self-selected.

The show rambles a bit about other countries Like Sweden which provide huge social benefits. But I think it is unfair to compare the US to Sweden, which is much smaller and taxes more heavily. Or to a country like Norway which has huge economic benefits from oil.

But unfortunately, the discussion of choice is not being discussed on Alex and definitely not on Fox (abortion is bad after all). I get a lot of guys here like to raw dog, but the woman still has to be responsible right? And if you get a girl pregnant you as a man need to be responsible also.

I don't think it is good at all to have kids and not provide them the right parenting and support. It is unfair to the kid, to the parents and to society. I get that fairness doesn't matter to many people. All that matters is that moment of gratification.

Maybe I am way off base, just slightly annoyed that an educated person who would make such off base comments. I am middle of the road when it comes to politics. But when some things are personal choices, you get to be responsible (yes, I know our health is our own personal matter - but even the healthiest still get sick) and not make it everyone else's problem.