You people do realize that when they give you food stamps or welfare, they don't dole you out thousands and thousands and make you middle class. They give you a couple hundred so you don't go homeless.

Ah, I read it wrong, I apologize.
But at first I thought you were talking about those on welfare exploiting the money and buying frivolous things with it, as though they got thousands and thousands of dollars at their disposal.

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

I googled government statistics on welfare recipients.
Yes raising children is a job and a lot of single mothers do that and hold down a job. If one can do it others can. I work with several young seperated mothers that are not on welfare and have children. Two of them have children that have life threatning diseases. What makes mothers that are on welfare better than them? Yes they have two jobs. But if you have children then you should be prepared to work and care for them.
There are times someone needs a hand. I have no problem with that.

But you know I have seen elderly sick people that dont have anything but a cheap mobile home and have heart disease or other life threatning illness and are truely disabled that applied for welfare and got turned down for it and turned down for medicaid because they got a 600.00 check for social security every month. They had to pay the mobile home payments and medicare insurance copays, car payment and insurance payments and buy food and utilities with this 600.00 a month. How are they supposed to make it. They get denied and they worked and paid taxes all their lives. But cant even get medicaid. Guess why? They dont have dependants.
Is that right? Is that fair. But some bimbo with 3 children with 3 different fathers that is 24 years old and never worked can? What is wrong with this picture. Hmmm. There are old folks that eat canned dogfood for christ sakes and cant get more than 30.00 worth of food stamps a month. But an unwed mother can eat steak and shrimp.

Welfare is not managed right. And due to the abuses the people that really need it sometimes cant get it.

What makes being young and having a child more needy than being old and feeble more eligible. That young mother can work that old person cannot.

If so many didnt abuse it the people that really need it might get it. I for one want my tax dollars helping someone that contributed something more to society than just another kid.

Although you have somewhat sidestepped the question I asked. As both raising children and having a job involve a person performing labour, I asked whether raising a child can be considered work? (while the wording is different, I am too lazy to go back check how I phrased the question before)

@wandering echo-
I read your post and am at somewhat of a loss. You correctly identify issues of inequality, you even acknowledge that the raising of children is a job in itself. Although instead of targeting the inequalities that the system is built upon you decided to support it by both directing attention away from it and reinforcing its myths.

[QUOTE=

@wandering echo-
I read your post and am at somewhat of a loss. You correctly identify issues of inequality, you even acknowledge that the raising of children is a job in itself. Although instead of targeting the inequalities that the system is built upon you decided to support it by both directing attention away from it and reinforcing its myths.[/QUOTE]


Im sorry I dont understand what you mean by directing attention from what and reinforcing what myth.
Raising children a duty that happens to be work. You dont get paid to raise your own children.
And having young single mothers get pregnant while on welfare and having more babies is not a myth.
I say help them temporarally but if they have another one while they are on it dont give them more compensation. They will have to make due with flat rate benefits. We dont get paid more at our jobs when we have a child why should they.

You have been directing attention away from, the system which we live in. One which is by and large a capitalist system. While we have 'humanized it' a bit, its foundations are still very much inequalities and it is these inequalities which it is dependent on in order to operate. This inequality manifests itself in numerous areas, Race Ideology, International relations and in relation to this thread Gender relations.
Yet you do not stop to ask, why it is that our society deems the raising of children to be a lesser work than others and thus unworthy of pay. Could it be a simple coincidence that an occupation (the raising of children) which just happens to be predominantly occupied by females, also happens to be one which is unworthy of pay?
Capitalism being a system which discriminates against females (as well as other marginalized groups) is not a myth either.

Since when is it a job you should be paid for to raise your own? Are you saying that we should pay all this single mothers to have children. Isnt that what welfare is already doing? I didnt know having babies and raising them was capitalist. Thats a new one on me.

I would be most interested in seeing where you drew this conclusion from. As up till now, I have been arguing that it is a corrupt systems which is both breeds and is founded on inequalities. One such inequality which relates to this thread is gender.

Is this a serous question? As I am unsure if you really wanted me to provide examples of cultures which have placed value on the act of raising children. They have in their own ways 'paid' them for doing so.

I am referring to raising your own children. Not getting paid to raise someone else's. No one said no importance was applied to raising children just that raising your own children would not be considered a working job but a duty. If you breed them then feed them. And house them and clothe them. But the point of the thread is that if you cant take care of your own children then dont have them.

I do not see why you are not questioning why it is that this labour which is provided predominantly by females is considered free labour or as you put it a duty. The view that defining such labours as being unworthy of pay is a tool in order to support the discrimantive properties of capitalism is hardly a new one. As this quote identifies.

Even you yourself pointed out examples where because this labour is unrecognised, people are forced into situations where in effect they are forced to take in other labour as well. Which I rightly agree is an injustice, which is exactly why we need to directly address the source of this injustice.

Although I am still not seeing why it is that the labours involved in raising children are deemed to be of a second class. This distinction between what is qualified as being paid work and unpaid work, is little more than a means of subordinating females. It is in a sense a forced subsidisation for the rest of society. After all where is it that you think we get our work force from for example?

One only needs to take a glance at these statistics from Canada for instance to see how unpaid work disproportionately effects females.

Both quotes came from http://www.unpac.ca/economy/unpaidwork.html

I agree with you except on one point. I think the biological father has just as much responsibilty as the woman to see that the children are financially taken care of.

With dna testing now I say make the men pay up also. If the woman cant afford to raise them the biological father should. I say men stand up and be men and take responsibility. You are just as guilty as the woman. They got away without paying the consequences for two long. They would think twice if they were brought up with having to take dna tests and pay the price. Women have paid alone for too long. Just like the thread title says if you cant feed them dont breed them.

Hey you know what if men had to own up in most cases then guess what they would start thinking twice before getting between someones legs. Just like they say about women. Nothing wrong with tit for tat. Maybe if they knew they would be accountable they wouldnt try to sleep with as many girls as they can.