Trouble in the nanny state

[mocgator]

More arguments supporting my case that the welfare broodmares are the cause of much that is wrong in the USA..

http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/trouble-in-the-nanny-state/

Unwed mothers have been the perennial excuse for big government, going back to Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, who plotted in the 1960s to create broken families, welfare dependency and urban riots to pave the way for socialist revolution.

That’s why single mothers are revered victims – victims in need of an ever-expanding social safety net, staffed with well-pensioned government workers. As described in that great book, “Guilty: Liberal ‘Victims’ and Their Assault on America,” liberals concoct fake victims in order to victimize the rest of us.

The only thing single mothers are “victims” of is their own choice to have sex with men they’re not married to. Liberals seem to believe that drinking soda is voluntary, but getting pregnant is more like catching the flu.

It would be hard to make the case that fast food, plastic bags and cigarettes do more damage than single motherhood.

So liberals don’t try to make that case. They just say they’re against “shaming” and then go back to shaming gun owners, non-recyclers, smokers and “Big Gulp” aficionados – while subsidizing illegitimacy.

[rivergator]

I'm trying to figure out who reveres single motherhood.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by rivergator

I'm trying to figure out who reveres single motherhood.

Hollywood for one

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Hollywood for one

How so?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by rivergator

How so?

Well I'll give you a perfect example to which I'm sure you'll disagree. I believe the whole Murphy Brown situation which started out with an episode of her having a baby with no father in the picture. She got criticized and did not back down and made no bones about revering single motherhood.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Well I'll give you a perfect example to which I'm sure you'll disagree. I believe the whole Murphy Brown situation which started out with an episode of her having a baby with no father in the picture. She got criticized and did not back down and made no bones about revering single motherhood.

I'm not sure a TV show or movie showing what's happening in real life is exactly the same as 'revering' it.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by rivergator

I'm not sure a TV show or movie showing what's happening in real life is exactly the same as 'revering' it.

As I said, I'm sure you would disagree. Hollywood is perfectly capable of sending messages through their content for the boob-tube crowd. Why else would we manage what our kids watch?

[wygator]

Ten years after the fact, Candice Bergen said Dan Quayle was right:

All that righteous indignation for nothing: Candice Bergen, it turns out, actually concurred with Dan Quayle, who 10 years ago, when he was Vice-President, famously criticized her and her TV show, "Murphy Brown," for presenting a leading character as an unwed mother. At the time, Quayle, who was long the butt of jokes for his several grammatical and logical gaffes in public, attacked Bergen's "Murphy Brown" TV character for "mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone and calling it just another 'lifestyle choice.'" Commentators had a field day -- mostly asking whether Quayle had anything better to do -- while on the CBS sitcom itself, Bergen, as Brown, was shown heavily bogged down with the chores of motherhood and asking what Dan Quayle found so glamorous about her situation. But, reports the Associated Press, speaking to TV reporters this week, Bergen, now 56 (and a lifelong liberal, despite having a staunchly conservative father, ventriloquist Edgar Bergen), declared: "I never have really said much about the whole episode, which was endless. But his speech was a perfectly intelligent speech about fathers not being dispensable and nobody agreed with that more than I did."

Popular entertainment media matters to many people. Do you think the sexualization on MTV doesn't impact our teens?

I always find it interesting that Hollywood claims that their stories on TV or in movies won't affect peoples behavior. Yet major corporations buy time in those programs in 30 second snippets betting that media messages do, in fact, affect peoples behavior. Remember the boom in Reeses pieces sales after their simple product placement in ET?

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,624379,00.html

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by wygator

Ten years after the fact, Candice Bergen said Dan Quayle was right:



Popular entertainment media matters to many people. Do you think the sexualization on MTV doesn't impact our teens?

I always find it interesting that Hollywood claims that their stories on TV or in movies won't affect peoples behavior. Yet major corporations buy time in those programs in 30 second snippets betting that media messages do, in fact, affect peoples behavior. Remember the boom in Reeses pieces sales after their simple product placement in ET?

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,624379,00.html

I certainly agree that all media has some effect: Music, movies, TV ...
I just disagreed with the 'revere' part of it.

[HALLGATOR]

If this is a big part of the problem what is/are the solution(s)?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by rivergator

I certainly agree that all media has some effect: Music, movies, TV ...
I just disagreed with the 'revere' part of it.

That is denial because that is exactly what Murphy Brown did

[PITBOSS]

Originally Posted by mocgator

................That’s why single mothers are revered victims – victims in need of an ever-expanding social safety net, staffed with well-pensioned government workers. As described in that great book, “Guilty: Liberal ‘Victims’ and Their Assault on America,” liberals concoct fake victims in order to victimize the rest of us.

The only thing single mothers are “victims” of is their own choice to have sex with men they’re not married to. Liberals seem to believe that drinking soda is voluntary, but getting pregnant is more like catching the flu.

It would be hard to make the case that fast food, plastic bags and cigarettes do more damage than single motherhood.

So liberals don’t try to make that case. They just say they’re against “shaming” and then go back to shaming gun owners, non-recyclers, smokers and “Big Gulp” aficionados – while subsidizing illegitimacy.

So gun owners are victims because their feelings are hurt and they feel shame? Or it’s hypocritical somehow because we don't make single mothers feel shame and they are the same as gun owners?! Or is it....we should just shame single mothers more?! What IS the point?!??!?!

And posting a Anne Coulter Op Ed? Seriously?

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

If this is a big part of the problem what is/are the solution(s)?

that's the question, isn't it?

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by PITBOSS

So gun owners are victims because their feelings are hurt and they feel shame? Or it’s hypocritical somehow because we don't make single mothers feel shame and they are the same as gun owners?! Or is it....we should just shame single mothers more?! What IS the point?!??!?!

And posting a Anne Coulter Op Ed? Seriously?

The other day, one of the leaders in the rightwing Family Research Council said we should be ostracizing, shaming even punishing people who have premarital sex. That it's all the Supreme Court's fault because it ruled that single people have a right to contraceptives., which means they have the right to sex, of all things.

[MichiGator2002]

This would be the Family Research Council that recently was targeted for an act of political terrorism by someone who, unlike a Loughner or Holmes, appeared not to be suffering any mental illness, who recently plead guilty. Apropos of nothing, just felt like a reminder.

Their position that we need to reintroduce the concept of shame back into our social interactions has nothing to do with out rights. Liberals try to shame gunowners and SUV owners and smokers, white people merely for existing, etc, all the time. Promiscuity has no net beneficial effects to society. Trying to reestablish a social norm against it is a way to try to curb it without having to rely on tyranny.

[gatordowneast]

A good start on correcting the problem would be to cut out the "reward" for birthing children out of wedlock. You get X amount of money to help you with your child but if you birth any more, no more dough. And you only get dough to help the first child for a maximum of 2 years and then we are done...so you have 2 years to get yourself some training for a job or to get yourself employed. After that, you either need to be working or go see your friends, family or charities for assistance. 2 years...and we the taxpayers are done with funding you.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by gatordowneast

A good start on correcting the problem would be to cut out the "reward" for birthing children out of wedlock. You get X amount of money to help you with your child but if you birth any more, no more dough. And you only get dough to help the first child for a maximum of 2 years and then we are done...so you have 2 years to get yourself some training for a job or to get yourself employed. After that, you either need to be working or go see your friends, family or charities for assistance. 2 years...and we the taxpayers are done with funding you.

It has been accepted as the norm in certain circles of todays society and in there is the problem. It is generations deep and has permeated to perhaps the point of no return. Unless it become vilified like smoking has, there is no hope.

[channingcrowderhungry]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Their position that we need to reintroduce the concept of shame back into our social interactions has nothing to do with out rights. Liberals try to shame gunowners and SUV owners and smokers, white people merely for existing, etc, all the time. Promiscuity has no net beneficial effects to society. Trying to reestablish a social norm against it is a way to try to curb it without having to rely on tyranny.

This is the only real solution I've ever been able to come up with. Shame. People used to be ashamed to be a single mother, a dead beat dad, fat, and any number of things. Being socially shamed has basically left our society. I'm not talking about being bullied, but a personal sense of pride.

[gatordowneast]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

It has been accepted as the norm in certain circles of todays society and in there is the problem. It is generations deep and has permeated to perhaps the point of no return. Unless it become vilified like smoking has, there is no hope.

I would agree. We have 3 generations (starting in the mid 60s with the war on poverty) that have the playbook down of where to apply for what program and how much you get.

However, we need to break the cycle at some point...might as well be now. Everyone getting aid has 2 years to get off. 24 months and you are done. That includes foreign aid as well. 2 years. 24 months. 104 weeks. 730 days. And the spigot is turned off.

[PSGator66]

Some of these women work the system like a Philadelphia attorney and then pass on what they know to the next generation.