2 ms·

The US has discovered that there's a substantial portion of the population (which for this could be 1%, 10%, 20% whatever) who is really bad at raising kids, ba

The US has discovered that there's a substantial portion of the population (which for this could be 1%, 10%, 20% whatever) who is really bad at raising kids, basically. If the school doesn't provide lunch, the kids would simply not eat any lunch. So they provide lunches, because it's easier than handling the fallout from some kids not eating, etc. As a child I never had "provided lunch" but I also went to private school; we didn't even have any option through elementary (grade 8, about 12). High school had a greasy burger joint (think: high school football game concession stand) but that was it. Providing lunches involves enough work that providing breakfast, too isn't much more expensive. (The programs may have started for other reasons but the above is usually why they continue. It's also hard to stop doing something like "provide kids food" once you start.)

senectus1 2y ago
>The US has discovered that there's a substantial portion of the population (which for this could be 1%, 10%, 20% whatever) who is really bad at raising kids, basically. I'm a center-lefty, but America appears to be mostly right and I find it fascinating that this is just "accepted". Why does America just accept that some (a large enough number that most schools have to feed them) people cant raise their kids?
- lesuorac 2y ago
  Are you going to require people get a license to procreate? Or perhaps are you saying that the government should provide a nanny to everybody that can't raise their kid?
  - gs17 2y ago
    We already have a system where the government can send "child raising inspectors" to your house and potentially take away your children. It's dysfunctional, yes, but it exists.
  - senectus1 2y ago
    this is not the only alternative.... What I see is a cultural/community problem.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  Because for a not insubstantial portion of America, they see it as their "Christian duty". I see people on Facebook who refer to their kids, unironically, as "future warriors for Christ".

senectus1 2y ago

>The US has discovered that there's a substantial portion of the population (which for this could be 1%, 10%, 20% whatever) who is really bad at raising kids, basically. I'm a center-lefty, but America appears to be mostly right and I find it fascinating that this is just "accepted". Why does America just accept that some (a large enough number that most schools have to feed them) people cant raise their kids?

lesuorac 2y ago
Are you going to require people get a license to procreate? Or perhaps are you saying that the government should provide a nanny to everybody that can't raise their kid?
- gs17 2y ago
  We already have a system where the government can send "child raising inspectors" to your house and potentially take away your children. It's dysfunctional, yes, but it exists.
- senectus1 2y ago
  this is not the only alternative.... What I see is a cultural/community problem.
FireBeyond 2y ago
Because for a not insubstantial portion of America, they see it as their "Christian duty". I see people on Facebook who refer to their kids, unironically, as "future warriors for Christ".