So says a commenter at this post by Joan Blades at Huffington Post.
Blades is shilling for Momsrising.org, a group advocating more government intrusion and regulation of business and family life and higher taxes. Well, that's not what they say they're for. They say they're for maternity and paternity leave, flexible work, TV and afterschool programs, health care for all kids, excellent childcare, and "realistic" wages. Everywhere I look on their site, though, I can't find where they think this money is going to come from (although a few seem to think that if we just get out of Iraq the money spent on defense can pay for these things...yeah, right).
Hey, I'd love to get paid for staying home raising my kiddoes, too. And I don't know anyone advocating terrible childcare. And most people would say they'd like better wages.
But who is gonna pay for those things?
Why, the same people who pay for the other things. The taxpayers.
Blade doesn't go into any of that in this piece. Mainly, she's defending herself against the hordes of anti-breeder trolls condemning her opinions.
It's interesting to read the comments. On one side are the commenters who agree with Blades that yes, yes, yes! We need the government to mandate paid leave, flexible hours, better wages, better childcare (with no increase in price), etc., etc. That side doesn't explain how on earth we will pay for all this new regulation without a spike in unemployment for the very people Blades wants to help.
The other side--and in some ways, the more interesting side--is completely anti-children--er, breeder.
Here are a few comments from this side:
Blacksheep: I am a "progressive democrat," but I can't help but feel a little anger at the 19-year-old with a baby on her hip and pregnant with the next one -- solely supported by the taxpayers at large. I know she's not living a life of luxury, but her luxury is being able to stay home and watch and help her children learn and grow.
I wouldn't want to deprive any mother of this, but I think that we need to reform the way welfare works -- I know this is going to sound completely totalitarian and against civil rights, but I strongly feel that as soon as a woman enrolls for welfare after birthing a child, she must go on norplant, depoprovera, or get an IUD (long-term birth control methods). If she cannot personally support one child, her freedom to have more must be removed until she has a way to support more children.
ORSunshine: Having a child might require a good deal of sacrifice on the part of the parents, but it is still an inherently selfish act. Feeling the need to reproduce when there are already so many children in need says that you care more about the experience of pregnancy, childbirth, or spreading your own genetic material than you do about caring for children.
charon: Why should responsible people who choose not to further overpopulate the planet be held responsible for the choices--or "accidents"--of those who do contribute to overpopulation, often not unselfishly, but with extreme ego and self-gratification in mind. As for women earning less--well, moms are the first to leave work and take time off to go to school functions, etc. But that leaves their colleagues to do extra work, so why shouldn't those colleagues earn more and be more often promoted? To do otherwise would be discriminatory...
What I found interesting in all the discussion was that no one discussed the role private charities, religious organizations, and civic groups can and do play in helping families. Is it really so hard to conceive of private institutions helping families instead of the government? Welcome to the legacy of FDR, I suppose.
|