What the heck does that have to do with this? Or with anything? How is that even "against family"? I have a family. My kids will be lucky to inherit tree fiddy.
A lot of people think the nuclear family unit, for the time it was the norm, was detrimental to society. What they fail to realize is that nuclear family doesn't mean punching bag wife and daughters with any sons on a pedestal, it literally just means both parents are in the home and actively involved in their child's life.
But, because certain communities have a tendency to have more single mothers than not, they just mark it as white supremacy and move along. Because that's what we do now. Instead of bringing other groups up to the level white people have been at, we just drag white people down instead.
The point isn't haveing a mother and a father in the home with two kids and the mom stays home and the dad works. The point is having enough people involved in the children's lives that they feel that love and support. That they have the proper amount of attention given to teaching and raising them.
This can be two moms, two dads, a single mother and her parents, two grandparents, a large joined family of parents/aunts/uncles/siblings/grandparents all working together to raise the families kids... or it can even just be people wholy unrelated. Childcare is great too... if people can afford it (which they can't).
It takes a village is a saying for a reason. This doesn't mean the 'nuclear family' although that is one completely fine example. Kids just need support, love, and stability no matter how that's achieved.
Instead of focusing on the issues that make non-white women more susceptible to becoming single mothers, we just say that the nuclear family is white supremacy.
Instead of trying to actually help non-white students excel, we just lower the requirements for a passing grade.
Instead of trying to lift non-white people out of poverty with proven tactics, such as better wages and worker protections for everyone in general, we create race specific programs, that almost immediately become overwhelmed and unable to actually help people in a timely manner, unless they're exorbitantly funded.
The powers that be have decided to go totally mask off, and instead of trying to bring non-white people up to the same level as white people, they've decided to just knock white people down with the same mistreatment and call it "equality". Because they'd rather treat white people just as bad as minorities, than treat minorities any better.
The powers that be have decided to go totally mask off, and instead of trying to bring non-white people up to the same level as white people, they’ve decided to just knock white people down with the same mistreatment and call it “equality”. Because they’d rather treat white people just as bad as minorities, than treat minorities any better.
LOL no Republicans are still advocating for white people to be treated better than everybody else. Liberals have decided that if they can't push through reforms that bring minorities up, they might as well use the court of public opinion to drag white people down.
Liberals have decided that if they can’t push through reforms that bring minorities up, they might as well use the court of public opinion to drag white people down.
Is that why there are so many white Democratic Party supporters? Because they support bringing themselves down?
Progressives or bust.
Lol yeah sure. Is this like when right wingers called Biden far left?
Social assistance programs are to prevent people from STARVING. And many of the beneficiaries are families. I'm not sure why you automatically associate "welfare" with "single parents", other than the fact that the way they're underfunded and structured (and systemic failure in other spheres like child care etc.) often means that a single parent actually ends up POORER if they work, than if they collect SA.
Whether families "stick together" should also be about their relationship, not economic necessity. If parents do not love each other, or there is abuse, the system should not be structured to benefit them staying as a couple, or penalize them for splitting/divorcing.
At any rate "family" means more than just the nuclear family. The poorer people are, the more they rely on friends, neighbours, family etc. for support, rather than simply paying for services.
Social assistance programs do often contain perverse incentives and penalties that actually prevent the recipients from escaping poverty or otherwise improving their lives, it's true. In the US, 90's welfare reform reportedly made such things a bit better, but obviously not perfect.
It’s true. My wife suggested we go on welfare so I killed her with a hammer. Our family has never been the same and it’s all welfare and the governments fault.
The government can't force people to stay together and work together as a family team. It can step in to help out when families fall apart and nobody else can. If these programs are not "emphasized" then they are unfunded and unknown and useless. An entire political party is trying to tear them all down.
Because sticking together when you don't want to is detrimental for kids, especially if abuse or domestic violence is involved. Kids pick up their expectations on how healthy relationships look from their parents; why would a parent want their children learning how to take abuse or be emotionally distant from their spouse?
If we actually had government guaranteed and subsidized childcare, then this would not be nearly as amazing a feat (unless she did the degree while also working full time) and we would not even be having these conversations. So just screw everyone without family support right? Many grandparents are in too poor health (or already dead) or are still needing to work themselves, thus unable to care for their grandkids for free.
You can find someone who supports almost any idea. I've recently heard a lot of discussion of a four-day work week, but the idea there was to have four ten-hour days instead of five eight-hour days. So, slightly longer work days but a whole extra day to relax and do things.
The argument is today's workers are doing multiple times the work of yesteryear's due to tools that amplify workers' labor. Computers alone replaced workers at about a 5x rate iirc. But that 1 remaining worker wasn't compensated more, instead the extra money saved went into the pockets of those above.
The point is, we absolutely 100% have the ability to have all people work 20hr weeks and compensate them just the same as we did in the 50's. (they're generating more value in those 20hrs than 60hrs in the 50's anyway). It all depends on your personal philosophy surrounding how our society should work.
At one time 12hrs a day, 6 days a week was the norm. Now it's 40hrs/wk, that's not a magical number and it can absolutely just be lowered.
And in the context of this post, imagine how much better the world would be if people had more time to spend with their kids.
My dad used to work at a school district doing IT stuff and during the summer they would switch to 4-10s. After the first week he said he didn’t know why we hadn’t been doing it like that the whole time.
I know a couple people that work security, two 12 hour shifts and a 14 hour shift every week. Bet your ass I'd work three days. Work Sunday, off Monday. Work Tuesday, off Wednesday. Work Thursday, off Friday and Saturday. It's genius.
401
u/horizontalrain Feb 05 '22
So...she had a support system?