MSM ignores basic truth

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/27 ... ac-donald#


On Child Poverty, MSM Ignores the Basic Truth

September 21, 2011 7:42 P.M. By Heather Mac Donald
The cardinal rule for writing about child poverty if you are in the mainstream media is this: Never, ever mention single parenthood. This New York Times article on a study showing that one in three young families with children were living in poverty in 2010 scrupulously obeys the rule. The Times offers several possible reasons for this recent rise in child poverty, including the high-tech, high-skills economy and the greater difficulties of going on welfare following the 1996 federal welfare-reform law. It never articulates, however, what is overwhelmingly the largest predictor of child and family poverty: The family is not a two-parent household. In 2007, single-parent families were nearly six times more likely to be poor than married-parent families; that ratio has not significantly changed.

What in the hell is child poverty? How does it differ from family poverty? How can you so effectively separate the two? I'd say it is difficult for a single parent home to make ends meet. Either the parent works and leaves the kids unattended (can't afford to have them watched) or you remain focused on the kids and try to survive with little or no income. Frankly, I think single parenthood is so stressful and problematic comes down to our families being scattered throughout the nation chasing jobs or what not. There is little opportunity for an extended family support system that would lighten the load considerably.

It's easy to place blame and make play on our empathy when you ignore the fundamentals, namely that we all make choices in life and not all are good. Choice involves taking personal responsibility for making those choices. Our current society is structured in such a way that everyone is supposed to have a pity party and then pay for other's family mistakes. It needs to be a family issue not a governmental issue something the article alludes to in suggesting how much more difficult it is to get welfare. I'd suggest that when all else fails there is no shortage of people who will step in to help those who are truly in need even though they take full personal responsibility for their situation. My recollection of our community responses exemplifies such a response.

Rockdoc Franz wrote: What in the hell is child poverty? How does it differ from family poverty? How can you so effectively separate the two? I'd say it is difficult for a single parent home to make ends meet. Either the parent works and leaves the kids unattended (can't afford to have them watched) or you remain focused on the kids and try to survive with little or no income. Frankly, I think single parenthood is so stressful and problematic comes down to our families being scattered throughout the nation chasing jobs or what not. There is little opportunity for an extended family support system that would lighten the load considerably.

It's easy to place blame and make play on our empathy when you ignore the fundamentals, namely that we all make choices in life and not all are good. Choice involves taking personal responsibility for making those choices. Our current society is structured in such a way that everyone is supposed to have a pity party and then pay for other's family mistakes. It needs to be a family issue not a governmental issue something the article alludes to in suggesting how much more difficult it is to get welfare. I'd suggest that when all else fails there is no shortage of people who will step in to help those who are truly in need even though they take full personal responsibility for their situation. My recollection of our community responses exemplifies such a response.

Rockdoc.....an adult may indeed make the bad choices you describe, they may well have brought on their own state of poverty.....and saying they need to pay for their bad choices, or take responsibility for them is all fine and good. But the children did not make those bad choices, they did not choose to be born to poor, or alcoholic, or drug addicted, or just plain bad parents...they are not responsible for their dad or mom getting divorced, or losing their job, yet they also must live with the choices their parents have made. Child poverty is all about the innocents and what we can do to make their life better.....school lunches address that problem, education and programs designed to keep them in school address the problem, Big Brother type programs try to provide the kids some stability. But we do not do enough for these kids, not nearly enough.

For all the right-to-lifers who abhor abortion and the loss of a precious life, why aren't they screaming at the government, or each other to give these kids that are already born a better life? Is their life any less precious than an unborn baby? Why are we punishing these children for the sins of their parents? They deserve to eat, they deserve to have basic health care/immunizations taken care of, they must be educated or they will have little chance of getting out of poverty, they deserve to have a chance at the American Dream.

Or am I all wrong here....do we as a nation bear no responsibility for the children? Do we let nature take it's course and have the kids follow in their parents footsteps? does that build a better country? I don't think you can take our community's responses and use that as a model for how to run charity in the rest of the country Rockdoc, this community bears little resemblance to Detroit, or Appalachia, or Alabama, or the slums of any major city.....we are blessed with wonderful community, but how blessed would we all be if there were tens of thousands in the community in poverty, if the poor outnumbered the rest? How much can we give till there is no more.....then what? That is why the responsibility is spread across all the nation, not just in the individual communities. We might be able to take care of our own, but most communities cannot.

I'm off the soap box for a while, this subject is so close to my heart and so important to my country, but I won't belabor the points, I've said my piece.

Well Archer, if there are that many then there is a fundamental problem with society. Since this thread an my response was aimed at impoverished children, I'll not address unborn children. I understand your arguments are to make a point, but like much of what you say it is terribly overstated. If I'm wrong then supply numbers with references. Your argument is emotional and that is fine. Those children likely still have an extended family who ought to be responsible to some extent for their welfare. Oh, I can already hear all the exceptional situations being argued, but for me it comes down to families remaining responsible for their families, extended or immediate. We are blessed with a wonderful community, but regardless of where you live you will always find the same kind of benevolent people who make up our community. I doubt very much that the number of impoverished children in any one area ever outnumber the rest unless you want to start looking in places like India or Somalia. Ultimately, the impoverished be it children or adults will tax a government system, no matter how large it is and nature will simply be nature. You do know that the highest rates of reproduction always occur in highly stressed communities such as in Somalia? It is nature's strategy of trying to preserve the species when infant mortality is high. Ultimately, I see us as just another member of a community in which we respond to environmental pressures. Nature and how it acts on that community does not care about the conditions you submit for survival justification, nature simply is and acts.

In 2007, single-parent families were nearly six times more likely to be poor than married-parent families; that ratio has not significantly changed.

This is the jist of the article and it's just a sad reality the value of a complete family unit is no longer high on totum pole for way too many people. I was lucky that my mom remarried after a few years of my dad dying (when I was 9). She immediately went on a life insurance spending spree (well intentioned) but pissed half away until she remarried and we got stable again. I know there's different stories for everyone, but I know that both my mom and my new adopted dad very important roles in raising me and keeping the finances more under control. I feel bad for the kids who don't get that good start...I just wish single parenting would start declining instead of increasing.

CriticalBill wrote:

In 2007, single-parent families were nearly six times more likely to be poor than married-parent families; that ratio has not significantly changed.

This is the jist of the article

But I thought NeptuneChimney said:

The cardinal rule for writing about child poverty if you are in the mainstream media is this: Never, ever mention single parenthood.

So how could that mention of single-parent families be in the article or be the gist of the article?

Unfortunately what people ought to do and what they do do are two different things. Extended family don't care for each other, people divorce without regard for the children, people reproduce when they have no way to care for their children. What is left are the children themselves. We can shake our fingers, but that does no more to rectify the situation than the parents irresponsible behavior that started the mess.

Wayn-O wrote:

CriticalBill wrote:

In 2007, single-parent families were nearly six times more likely to be poor than married-parent families; that ratio has not significantly changed.

This is the jist of the article

But I thought NeptuneChimney said:

The cardinal rule for writing about child poverty if you are in the mainstream media is this: Never, ever mention single parenthood.

So how could that mention of single-parent families be in the article or be the gist of the article?

Not sure I understand your point. My point is that it's not "PC" to say anything negative about single parent families.... as if they are just as successful as a complete family unit. I have no issue with anyone who through no fault of their own became a single parent, I just think we need to acknowledge that it's not an ideal way to raise kids and stay out of poverty.

neptunechimney wrote: www.nationalreview.com/corner/277977/chi...-heather-mac-donald#


On Child Poverty, MSM Ignores the Basic Truth

September 21, 2011 7:42 P.M. By Heather Mac Donald
The cardinal rule for writing about child poverty if you are in the mainstream media is this: Never, ever mention single parenthood.

I guess Heather Mac Donald hasn't checked Google News for the words "single parent" in the last month. There are more the 1,300 references to "single parent" in the media that Google indexes. Here's the list:

http://tinyurl.com/44sr8e6

It may seem like a minor thing, but if she's wrong on that first point in the article, what else is she wrong about?