WI bill claims single moms cause child abuse

regdog said:

They are focused on the stupid non-issues to keep Americans's focus off the artificially inflated gas and heating oil prices. The fact our infrastructure is falling down around us. Our public education system needs an overhaul. Oil companies are raking in billion dollar profits while receiving tax breaks, etc etc etc...

Click to expand...

No, see the GOP is trying to bring up the issue of "artificially inflated" gas and oil prices, but the fact that while the demand in the US is decreasing, the demand on the global level is increasing, namely in Asia and Africa.

Watching Fox News, it's pretty clear that the Republicans are emphasizing high gas prices, among other issues, because they're trying to unseat Obama, and the worse off they can make our current situation look (and of course, the more they can blame Obama for it) the better their chances are.

I don't see this as an attempt to distract us from the negatives. A quick look into this particular Republican's history--some of which is detailed in the article--will show that this is a continuation of an ongoing fight. He's been doing this sort of thing for years, and will continue, I imagine, so long as he's in office--regardless of who the president may be.

The kicker is, it's not just this one guy. All along the line, for years now, he's been backed up by his fellow Republicans. He's spouting this crap because it's perfectly in line with his party platform and he has the backing and support of his party.

As to the actual issue:

The additional wording really does make the statute read as an attack on single women raising families rather than single parents in general.

Section 3. 48.982 (2) (gm) of the statutes is amended to read:

13 48.982 (2) (gm) Provide, for use by the board in its statewide projects under sub. (5) and for use by organizations that receive grants under subs. (4) and (6), educational and public awareness materials and programming that emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect and the role of fathers in the primary prevention of child abuse and neglect.

Click to expand...

(bolding of last line mine)

It's less about where the oil is coming from, and more about oil speculation and the global commodities market and the just-plain-global nature of oil prices.

And the Republicans are still emphasizing, rather than trying to distract from, those prices--even insisting that Obama himself should be "doing more" to bring down the price of oil.

That said, this is a bit of a derail, and I'm happy to let it drop.

Why don't they take all of that energy they're using for this and direct it at, oh I don't know, actual child abuse? Wait, that would be productive.

regdog said:

They are focused on the stupid non-issues to keep Americans's focus off the artificially inflated gas and heating oil prices. The fact our infrastructure is falling down around us. Our public education system needs an overhaul. Oil companies are raking in billion dollar profits while receiving tax breaks, etc etc etc...

Click to expand...

I agree. They want us too busy worrying about who our neighbors are screwing and pumping to realize we're getting screwed at the pump.

I wonder if someone put 'something' in their food source or implanted something in them when they were sleeping?

How can so many be so out of their ever loving head about so many things?

DeleyanLee said:

I keep trying to give Republicans a fair shake, but it's getting pretty impossible. Every time I turn around, there's another Republican somewhere trying to legislate aspects of living that the government really has no right getting in to.

Click to expand...

It's called the Tea Party. I've never heard of this guy, but without even googling I'd bet a significant part of my retirement that he's a Tea Party leader, or at least a strong supporter.

The Tea Party, despite their protests, are little more these days than the modern morphing of the religious right.

I think they're obsessed with "recreating" a mythical American culture that never really existed in the first place.

shit..I live in WI. Believe me, this is par for the course. we're currently racing to become the next Mississippi, ideally 1950s Mississippi.

clintl said:

I think they're obsessed with "recreating" a mythical American culture that never really existed in the first place.

Click to expand...

Yep, pretty much. Social conservatives pretty much think that if they can get society back to that supposed golden era of a the 1950s then everything else will sort itself out.

What a crock (says the single mom).

Yes, I'm sure those were the days, back when you could be stuck forever in an unhappy, or even an abusive, marriage. For worse or for worser.

But seriously, who's making fun of old-fashioned families? I've never heard of such a thing. Who would do that?

Ah-ha, you have a mom and a dad. Loser.

So does this count for women who had husbands who have passed away?

Are they saying that a child is less likely to be abused in a home with a dad who habitually beats the tar out of his wife?

And how do single Dads fit in to all of this?

Still, it's good to see that they're embracing the idea of gay couples having children.

Right?

Vince524 said:

So does this count for women who had husbands who have passed away?

Are they saying that a child is less likely to be abused in a home with a dad who habitually beats the tar out of his wife?

And how do single Dads fit in to all of this?

Still, it's good to see that they're embracing the idea of gay couples having children.

Right?

Click to expand...

Nah, that's probably child abuse too.

But I'm unsure if that was a sarcastic or rhetorical or serious question. Sorry.

Actually, sarcasm is a key strategic weapon in Vince's arsenal.

I don't seem to have all my wits with me today...

Chrissy said:

Actually, sarcasm is a key strategic weapon in Vince's arsenal.

Click to expand...

Thank you for noticing.

I have other weapons, but they require you to crack a window.

Vince524 said:

I have other weapons, but they require you to crack a window.

Click to expand...

*slides window up a 1/2 inch and hits the ground*

So, here's fun stuff... just thought I'd throw this in here. Only about half of child abuse is committed by a female caregiver, and that's ANY caregiver... grandma, cousin, babysitter, etc. Men are actually the more likely abusers in most other cases. In fact, men commit app 62% of all infanticides in the U.S.

Just sayin'

Who just finished a research paper on violent crime for her criminology course? This girl!

FabricatedParadise said:

So, here's fun stuff... just thought I'd throw this in here. Only about half of child abuse is committed by a female caregiver, and that's ANY caregiver... grandma, cousin, babysitter, etc. Men are actually the more likely abusers in most other cases. In fact, men commit app 62% of all infanticides in the U.S.

Just sayin'

Who just finished a research paper on violent crime for her criminology course? This girl!

Click to expand...

I guess 12% of infanticided infants are lucky that women are weaker than men?

sulong said:

I guess 12% of infanticided infants are lucky that women are weaker than men?

Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, but your math is off. And personally I found that less funny and more disturbing.

FabricatedParadise said:

I get what you're saying, but your math is off. And personally I found that less funny and more disturbing.

Click to expand...

Same here, but I refrained from saying it for fear of saying it wrong.

FabricatedParadise said:

So, here's fun stuff... just thought I'd throw this in here. Only about half of child abuse is committed by a female caregiver, and that's ANY caregiver... grandma, cousin, babysitter, etc. Men are actually the more likely abusers in most other cases. In fact, men commit app 62% of all infanticides in the U.S.

Just sayin'

Who just finished a research paper on violent crime for her criminology course? This girl!

Click to expand...

To be fair, I don't think these people are necessarily trying to say that children need men to save them from their evil wimmin mothers. I think that they're trying to say that abuse or neglect is more common in single-parent households for other reasons, and they're assuming than single-parent household = mother-led household. Essentially, I think they're trying to encourage active fatherhood because two parents have twice as many hands and twice as much time and twice as much energy (and often twice as much money), and they see that as being able to stop some child abuse and neglect.

I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt for now, though I'm not sure why. Regardless, there's another interpretation of this besides misogyny.

I still think it's totally stupid legislation.