Image Hosting
Families headed by single mothers are at least four times more likely to be poor than those made up of a married couple and their children. -- REALLY? Wow. What about those headed by single fathers? Oh right, children tend to live with the mother after a divorce. Well I guess that explains that statistic. Next.
When children are raised by single parents, they are more likely to be poor, and their families are more likely to rely upon public assistance programs for housing, child care and money for food, clothes and medication. -- Again, this seems obvious.
In 1960, fewer than one in 10 households were made up of single parents or common-law couples; today, that number is one in three. -- Well yes, in 1960 women could barely file for divorce. It wasn't until the Divorce Act of 1985 and much grunt work by the feminist movement that women could truly file for divorce, other than on extremely violent or disgusting grounds. (Women had to go to the Senate and plead that their husbands had a)committed adultery, on top of b) performed some violent or obscene sexual act to them). This stat is useless.
Yet instead of bemoaning this breakdown of marriage, our society tends to applaud it, saying
"live and let live." The irony is that raising kids outside marriage actually makes a laissez-faire live and let live lifestyle less achievable -- because it increases the need for costly social programs, all of which amount to interventions in private family life. -- I'm so sorry that our public divorces are infringing on your paycheques. Let's force women to stay in abusive relationships. Let's force people to stay with alchoholic, deadbeat partners who do no share of the housework, or emotionless lovers. Let's force our children to have to huddle in their rooms while mom and dad shout at the top of their lungs. Let's excuse any philandering and cheating. In Al Green's words, "Let's stay together." COME ON.
A U. S. study last year determined that $140-billion in public spending could be saved if all children lived with their own married parents. In the U. K., the extra costs to the taxpayer of poverty in single-parent households were measured at $66-billion, equal to more than 6% of total government spending. -- I wonder how much government spending could be reduced if we took funding out of homeless shelters, nursing homes, children's group homes. They don't matter to big business either. Let's cut 'em all!
Of course taking money out of social programs would give our government more money to bail out faltering banks and disbanded businesses. The point of social programs is to increase the quality of life for people who can't afford to buy their way out. It's to provide relief to people who are divorced, to the homeless, poor children, students and the elderly, because they are the ones who need it. Taking money out of these social programs or altering legislation to make divorce more difficult, would of course lend more money to all the miniature Conrad Black's who read the National Post. But that's not the point. We could also charge $5.00 for the TTC, and that would generate a huge amount of money. But the people who use the TTC aren't the ones who can afford $5.00 every time they ride the rocket. It's the same idea.
This study was biased. It was useless. And the point behind it was so atrocious to me, who believes whole-heartedly in generous social programs, and the monetary equity of Canadians.
All children deserve to grow up in a household with their own married parents. -- they write. Shut-up Rebecca Walberg and Andrea Mrozek. Children deserve to grow up in home free from violence, substance abuse, constant fighting and simply bad parents, which are the leading reasons for divorce. Children deserve not to be used as masks for greedy conservative agendas.
-- the golden girl
 |
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment