5 ms·

So you're saying it's everything else that's wrong. Not that we accept single motherhood as normal and OK? That's what's wrong here. Rights without responsibil

So you're saying it's everything else that's wrong. Not that we accept single motherhood as normal and OK? That's what's wrong here. Rights without responsibility. Stop incentivizing single motherhood, for starters. Encourage men to stick around and for both parents to rely on each other. It feels like you're helping but you're not. You're encouraging futile behavior.

em-bee 4y ago
that's not what i meant to say. what's wrong is that we keep trying to find out who or what is at fault instead of trying to find out how to actually make things better. the question is: how do you encourage men to stick around? what makes them leave? who or what is incentivizing single motherhood? if it is economical factors, then those factors need to change. those are what i gave as examples. what i hear is: being a single mother is bad. you shouldn't leave your family. don't do that. but that doesn't help. we need to get a better understanding of what causes families to break apart. we need to provide an environment that supports families. being a single parent is not a cause, it is an outcome. we need to fix the causes for that outcome, if we want to change that. encourage parents to rely on each other what is that supposed to mean? a cynical reading suggests that this means that if only parents would rely on each other they would not have any problems. how about the ability to rely on society? because that is what is lacking. parents are on their own. i don't know, but is that what incentivizes single mothers? because they can get more help that way? if that is the case, yes, that should change, but not by providing less help to single parents, but rather by providing more help to couples, so they can stay together.
- colpabar 4y ago
  Of course there are external factors, but if you aren't even going to entertain the idea that the people who decide to live these lifestyles bear some of the responsibility for the outcomes, you are not helping anyone. It seems that as a society we have given up on the idea of personal responsibility/accountability.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    No, we as a society have deemed it irresponsible to leave it completely up to people who have never properly learned how to succeed in society what they want to do and instead set up programs to make it easier for them to get on the path to success. There still remains a vocal part of society that have given up their civic responsibility to improve society (whether by ensuring the other participants in the democracy are educated or by reducing pollution, etc.) and that believes that these groups should continue to remain impoverished for generations, radiating harms on the rest of society.
  - em-bee 4y ago
    i think it is irrelevant who is responsible, what matters is what we can do about it. i can not force you to change your lifestyle, but i can make the desired lifestyle more economically and socially viable. but that requires actually helping people instead of lecturing them.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  It's a hard question and we have to look at how we got here. Before 1955 or so, we weren't having this problem, for example. We had other problems, yes, but not this disaster. Not so many people were clients of the state. But for starters at a high level: - Dismantle any form of welfare; money, food stamps, housing, etc. for anyone of able mind and body and of working age. Children will never be an input for how much welfare you receive so there is no incentive to have kids. Possibly even penalize welfare based on number of kids. - As a consequence of this, fire most of the welfare administration nationwide - Build a new Citizen Development Force that takes on children from mothers that can't raise them without benefits. Any mother can drop their kid(s) off here but the mother then loses any rights to the child. These are large camps around the country that offer among the best salaries to qualified care takers, teachers, mentors, etc. Each function has aggressive KPIs (to go with the high salaries) and audits to ensure successful outcomes. There are checks and controls to prevent any type of abuse. - Citizen Development Force has a mission to nurture, raise, teach, and grow these kids into self sufficient, responsible adults. The top 30% are sent to universities or put into military leadership positions (officers). The rest are taught trades/technical/enlisted after 15 years of age based on their interests and aptitudes. Those with learning disabilities become clients of the state for life. Ideally, after about 20-30 years this program can begin to be shut down and the funds can be redistributed to finance new social problems. The idea is to break the cycle.
  - em-bee 4y ago
    please tell me you are joking. you want to punish people for having kids? do you think parents are going to give up their children willingly? what you are suggesting sounds like brave new world. that's a horrible vision. children growing up without their own parents is only going to make things worse. i do not believe that any form of institution is going to be more capable to raise children than natural parents. your ideas work under the assumption that these parents are not capable of raising their kids. but that is not true, and that is not the problem. the problem is that they have to raise their kids and make a living in an environment that is not supportive. pretty much any other country in the world is more supportive than the USA. the big factor that you are missing is that we don't know if those children will be capable to have families of their own. my prediction is that they won't be because they didn't grow up in a family themselves. so this system will have to continue in perpetuity because the children of these people will also have to be raised in these institutions, and more parents are going to send kids to these institutions than parents from there who will be able to raise kids on their own. it's going to create a cycle that will end in a dystopia. i was still with you when you said to disincentivize single parenting, but i thought you wanted to support families. you said it yourself: The #1 factor in determining if a kid will have a desired outcome is if they have a mom and a dad present. what you are suggesting here is quite the opposite. children in institutions is not children with parents. it smacks of hubris and arrogance. the assumption that normal people should be able to take good care of their kids without help and anyone who isn't is simply incapable and should not have had kids in the first place. that you know better than they do, and they should just submit to your authority. brave new world indeed. (UPDATED)

em-bee 4y ago

that's not what i meant to say. what's wrong is that we keep trying to find out who or what is at fault instead of trying to find out how to actually make things better. the question is: how do you encourage men to stick around? what makes them leave? who or what is incentivizing single motherhood? if it is economical factors, then those factors need to change. those are what i gave as examples. what i hear is: being a single mother is bad. you shouldn't leave your family. don't do that. but that doesn't help. we need to get a better understanding of what causes families to break apart. we need to provide an environment that supports families. being a single parent is not a cause, it is an outcome. we need to fix the causes for that outcome, if we want to change that. encourage parents to rely on each other what is that supposed to mean? a cynical reading suggests that this means that if only parents would rely on each other they would not have any problems. how about the ability to rely on society? because that is what is lacking. parents are on their own. i don't know, but is that what incentivizes single mothers? because they can get more help that way? if that is the case, yes, that should change, but not by providing less help to single parents, but rather by providing more help to couples, so they can stay together.

colpabar 4y ago
Of course there are external factors, but if you aren't even going to entertain the idea that the people who decide to live these lifestyles bear some of the responsibility for the outcomes, you are not helping anyone. It seems that as a society we have given up on the idea of personal responsibility/accountability.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  No, we as a society have deemed it irresponsible to leave it completely up to people who have never properly learned how to succeed in society what they want to do and instead set up programs to make it easier for them to get on the path to success. There still remains a vocal part of society that have given up their civic responsibility to improve society (whether by ensuring the other participants in the democracy are educated or by reducing pollution, etc.) and that believes that these groups should continue to remain impoverished for generations, radiating harms on the rest of society.
- em-bee 4y ago
  i think it is irrelevant who is responsible, what matters is what we can do about it. i can not force you to change your lifestyle, but i can make the desired lifestyle more economically and socially viable. but that requires actually helping people instead of lecturing them.
nemo44x 4y ago
It's a hard question and we have to look at how we got here. Before 1955 or so, we weren't having this problem, for example. We had other problems, yes, but not this disaster. Not so many people were clients of the state. But for starters at a high level: - Dismantle any form of welfare; money, food stamps, housing, etc. for anyone of able mind and body and of working age. Children will never be an input for how much welfare you receive so there is no incentive to have kids. Possibly even penalize welfare based on number of kids. - As a consequence of this, fire most of the welfare administration nationwide - Build a new Citizen Development Force that takes on children from mothers that can't raise them without benefits. Any mother can drop their kid(s) off here but the mother then loses any rights to the child. These are large camps around the country that offer among the best salaries to qualified care takers, teachers, mentors, etc. Each function has aggressive KPIs (to go with the high salaries) and audits to ensure successful outcomes. There are checks and controls to prevent any type of abuse. - Citizen Development Force has a mission to nurture, raise, teach, and grow these kids into self sufficient, responsible adults. The top 30% are sent to universities or put into military leadership positions (officers). The rest are taught trades/technical/enlisted after 15 years of age based on their interests and aptitudes. Those with learning disabilities become clients of the state for life. Ideally, after about 20-30 years this program can begin to be shut down and the funds can be redistributed to finance new social problems. The idea is to break the cycle.
- em-bee 4y ago
  please tell me you are joking. you want to punish people for having kids? do you think parents are going to give up their children willingly? what you are suggesting sounds like brave new world. that's a horrible vision. children growing up without their own parents is only going to make things worse. i do not believe that any form of institution is going to be more capable to raise children than natural parents. your ideas work under the assumption that these parents are not capable of raising their kids. but that is not true, and that is not the problem. the problem is that they have to raise their kids and make a living in an environment that is not supportive. pretty much any other country in the world is more supportive than the USA. the big factor that you are missing is that we don't know if those children will be capable to have families of their own. my prediction is that they won't be because they didn't grow up in a family themselves. so this system will have to continue in perpetuity because the children of these people will also have to be raised in these institutions, and more parents are going to send kids to these institutions than parents from there who will be able to raise kids on their own. it's going to create a cycle that will end in a dystopia. i was still with you when you said to disincentivize single parenting, but i thought you wanted to support families. you said it yourself: The #1 factor in determining if a kid will have a desired outcome is if they have a mom and a dad present. what you are suggesting here is quite the opposite. children in institutions is not children with parents. it smacks of hubris and arrogance. the assumption that normal people should be able to take good care of their kids without help and anyone who isn't is simply incapable and should not have had kids in the first place. that you know better than they do, and they should just submit to your authority. brave new world indeed. (UPDATED)