28 April 2008

Brick Wall

---I've been having one of those months where it feels like I'm running hell-bent-for-leather into a brick wall. Several times. With no helmet on.

The worst part is that I keep running at breakneck speed in the belief that the brick walls won't be there. Blind optimism or ferocious will: You make the call. All I know is that My head hurts either way.

---Had a chat with a young mother of two who could have been the mother of three, but lost the baby during the early stages of her pregnancy. She tells Me that the two fathers of her children couldn't put up with her because she's "difficult to deal with." Her example? "Things don't have to be done as I say, but they have to be done as they should be." When I asked her who defines "how things should be" she gave Me a wide-eyed look and said "Me, of course." During that conversation, putative Father #3 was dumped over the phone for going to wash his clothes at his ex-girlfriend's house. Within half an hour I went from reading about the future of media to "reality trailer-trash TV". Pass the mayo, somebody.

---Made Me wonder: Who is the actual father of this woman's children? She's certainly a hard worker, holding down a full-time job while studying to become a respiratory therapist, so she isn't a visible burden on society. But given her situation as a single mother of two, the tendency is to (a) Latch onto a man, any man, so long as he provides something, preferably money or (b) Latch on to the government who does provide money. In effect, govvy is hubby. 

Now you might argue that the kids don't need a father... and you would be wrong. Studies from different fields of academia prove that children are much better off with fathers than without them. But what do these studies say--if anything--when govvy is hubby and daddy isn't "needed"? Wouldn't that constitute a disincentive for men to stick around and be fathers? Wouldn't the women have an incentive to have children 4-6 years apart in order to keep govvy-hubby's money around? Doesn't the whole govvy-hubby movement undermine the family and openly discriminate against men, since after all, the major program is called Women and Infant Children and men--even single fathers--are virtually excluded from receiving benefits?

---Talked to a local organization that wants to "improve the social and economic opportunities of housing project residents." Their plan? Secure funds to help single mothers provide for their children by making them more capable of requesting and receiving State and Federal funds. In essence, teaching the dependent to become (better) beggars.

I suggested that there were ample funds to help improve the father-child relationship and that by strengthening the family, the socioeconomic opportunities would gradually improve over the long-term. The lady gave Me a stinkeye and said, with mustard gas floating over her words, "Men are the problem and women have to solve it." 

"By becoming beggars?" I asked.

She slammed her folder closed and humphed. We shared the same thought: A wasted hour. 

But at least I knew I'd bounced off a brick wall. She just added another brick.

The Jenius Has Spoken.

No comments: