Reddit mentions of Flat Broke with Children: Women in the Age of Welfare Reform

First, u/Flewtea, please understand that I am not attacking you or your opinion or experiences, I am simply offering some thoughts from my own personal experience.

Also, to avoid derailing your post u/throwawayisnotgreat, I have tried to make it informative for your perspective. I am not sure I have succeeded, and it did get long. My apologies!

If I'm remembering my reading correctly, this book and/or this book (I'm sorry, it has been a while since I cracked them open) state that welfare's original purpose was to allow mothers to stay at home to parent their children effectively when other options became untenable. This purpose has been twisted and tangled over the decades through laws and interpretations into a dungheap of epic proportions which is used to negatively influence public/political opinion toward the poor and further constrain their ability to function effectively within our society.

A welfare queen, in my humble opinion, is someone who utilizes and abuses the system for her own benefit, without concern for her children's upkeep and well-being.

In this instance, OP is being instructed to utilize the system under the original intent of the Welfare system - in order to care for her child - because other options are not apparent, and it would be a viable solution. However, within the system that currently exists, OP would need to understand that the red-tape and political atmosphere of today would make it as difficult as possible for her to "go on the system" and find a comfortable solution.

OP should know that the process itself can be humiliating and degrading. The solutions provided are not intended to provide for anything beyond basic means and support. It is not a matter of waltzing down, getting a hug, and being handed a check. They make you beg.

Additionally, OP should exhaust every option before applying, and be advised that the answer may still be "no."

OP would then be advised to remember that, upon qualification, retention of assistance is not guaranteed. In fact, the system has been engineered in such a way that a qualifying individual or household can be denied or suspended from the system at any time without any forewarning. There is an appeals process available. It puts the burden of proof on the applicant, who generally does not understand the system. The people who work there have trouble understanding it.

OP should also be aware that getting off the system is even more difficult than getting access to it. The difference between allowance and affordability is a hard line which leaves empty bellies and unpaid heating bills, and no more help - unless one falls below the line or becomes homeless. Then, you have an existing file and new circumstances, and they can just plug in the new information and the dance resumes.

People who use this system more than prove that they need it. Is it possible to work the system for personal benefit? Of course it is. People who live by working any system exist in every system, not just welfare and assistance. They are present in government offices, school buildings, retail stores, corporations, banks, prisons, food suppliers, casinos, union halls - if it exists, someone has figured out how to work it for their personal benefit to the detriment of others. I am going to say "Bernie Madoff" to make this point. There are dozens of others whose actions have been untested in a court of law, or tested and mildly punished or unpunished altogether (think Enron, cigarette companies, the banking system) or even rewarded...

The main differences between these individuals and people on assistance of any kind is the amount of money involved, and the ability to hide or fight back.

I (personally) think "welfare queen" might be a bit strong for this occasion.

____

edit, fixed typos, tried to address better, and further apologies to u/Flewtea and u/throwawayisnotgreat because I'm not trying to attack anyone or any position, and as usual I mucked it up.

Since the creation of TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) in 1996, benefits are capped at 2 children and 64 months. To receive these benefits mothers must comply with strict work requirements. If they get a job, they aren't allowed to leave it without being penalized.

A great read on the topic from a sociological perspective would be 'Flat Broke with Children: Women in the Age of Welfare Reform'. I read this a few years back and it did a great job of explaining the current US welfare system with the data to back it up.

To answer your question - there are no incentives to have more children assuming you are already on welfare.

If you do want to go the personal route: I make minimum wage and can afford luxury groceries. I also pay all my own bills including rent. Maybe you should move somewhere less expensive. <---Yes I realize this is myopic of me to say, but so is everything about your post. If you are truly interested in learning about welfare systems and the like please educate yourself with some well-researched media on the subject. http://www.amazon.com/Flat-Broke-Children-Welfare-Reform/dp/0195176014 As a starting point, this book is likely available at your local library and does a wonderfully thorough job of addressing a lot of your concerns and will give you some context/a bigger picture. I also think you would be much happier if you kept your eyes on your own grocery basket.

Wow! There's a lot of garbage in there! Let's go down the list:

Rape:

• Your...blog...argues that men are being falsely accused of rape and having their constitutional rights stripped away. Unfortunately for you, this section seems to be...well...bullshit.
  
  
• First, the "constitutional rights" it's on about is discussing the disciplinary hearing process that colleges go through. That disciplinary process is not an actual part of the US Justice System. Further, colleges have a long history of refusing to issue punishments or report rape to the police.
  
  
• Second, rape is an underreported crime. Not only that, but it happens a lot in colleges. It's often not reported because people don't believe the victim and in order to seek justice, the victim will be eviscerated on the stand, effectively blaming her for her rape..
  
  Boys Crisis
  
  
• I'll simply leave this here for you to read.
  
  
• Gender Bias in sentencing - this is an actual thing. It is well documented in the academic literature and is a real issue. It has also worked against blacks, hispanics, gays, etc. The bigger issue here is prejudice in the judicial system.
  
  Domestic Abuse:
  
  
• Domestic abuse is a serious issue. And it totally happens to men. The problem with your source is that it only links to other articles without making an argument based on those articles. Which is a shame, because male victims of domestic abuse are not discussed for many, many reasons.
  
  Custody used to exclusively go to the man. The link provided is interesting, but doesn't capture the whole issue. You'll also find that the wellfare office is dominated (and I mean like 95% dominated) by single mothers. The gender issues here are very complicated, so to reduce them down to a simple percentage is a touch misleading.
  
  Child Support
  
  
• First, child support is not a punishment or reward for either parent. Child support is intended to do just that: support the child. Rapists have also been forced to pay child support.
  
  
• Second, while where here, statutory rape is not the same thing as rape. We all know this. But the reason these people were not prosecuted as full-on rapists is that the other party consented (yes, it matters, even if legally they "cannot" give consent).
  
  
• Before the issue of child support, teenage boys who slept with adult women were lauded and praised. "Where were those teachers when I was in school" is a common joke. This isn't to say that some of these kids aren't actually being coerced or that this isn't harmful, just that the issue is more complicated than your source tries to make it out to be.
  
  Title 9
  
  
• This entire section is bullshit. Here's the rundown:
  
  
• The sports where genders directly compete (like gymnastics, which your source mentions) are seen as primarily girls' sports. There is emerging literature in the sociology of masculinity that examines this. It is fascinating, but to compare a school's gymnastics program to it's football program as a way of saying that Title 9 has attacked men is complete and utter bullshit. If you want to know who's hurting mens sports, look at the NCAA.
  
  
• Hate crimes are a tricky area because the police must be trained to recognize hate crimes. It has been an issue, but it has also been getting better. You'll also note that until very recently, crimes against GLBT people haven't been considered hate crimes. Anyway, here's the FBI breakdown of hate crimes for 2013, and here's a report from Texas DPS. You won't like it.
  
  
• War deaths, really? Your source couldn't come up with a more compelling argument than one line saying "Yup, men die at war since women can't go" ?
  
  
• Workplace deaths, suicide, and homicide rates showing that males are most often the victim can be attributed to many things (more dangerous job, providing for a family, higher instances of crime, etc). What this toss-away stat doesn't do is show that it is somehow a conspiracy in the system to kill off men.
  
  
• Male Rape
  
  
• Finally! Your source finally got around to it. Jesus, it took him long enough. Oh...he only...he only looks at prison rape...from one source.
  
  
• This is unfortunate since it is an incredibly important area. Once you start examining male rape and the reasons that it is virtually invisible (despite actually happening!), you start seeing the reasons that explain many of the other issues that have been brought up: men aren't allowed to be victims, they aren't supposed to care about their kids, and they are supposed to provide by working to death. (more on this in the conclusion).
  
  
• Reproductive rights - there is an argument to be made here, but it looks like your source ran out of steam, instead opting for a one liner about 0 reproductive rights and circumcision.
  
  
• Women have been forced to carry to term their rapists baby. Women are right now being denied abortions because men decided women shouldn't have control over their bodies. Now I agree that it sucks that the father has very little input over having an abortion or not, but it comes down to the idea of forcing a woman to undergo surgery or forcing her to carry a child to term. You wouldn't force someone to be sterilized or to give up one kidney or to live with a disease. You can't force a woman to undergo a surgery or to carry a fetus to term. It sucks, but it's the right thing to do.
  
  Whew! Done with that! That took a bit of doing.
  
  Now then, conclusion. The problem here is that your source is taking almost everything out of context or relying on blogs (seriously? Blogs!) to make his points. On top of that, he sounds like an angry child who just realized the world isn't fair.
  
  The men's-rights movement is mostly far-right, "libertarian" (read as anarcho-capitalists), low-educated men who have decided that women's rights movements, the civil rights movements, and the LGBT movement have taken something away from them.
  
  This stems from the way we talk about privilege. Now, don't get me wrong, it exists, but too many people discuss it as if it is a weapon that men wield intentionally. What these people fail to get across is that men didn't ask for male privilege and many men worked quite hard to get to where they are, and most academics recognize that. We don't blame men for their station, we don't say they got there because of the system, we simply say this:
  
  "Imagine all the hard work and dedication it took to get to where you are today. Think about all the setbacks and obstacles you overcame on your way to here. Now understand that many people face even more obstacles than you did: different ones, harder ones, or simply just more of them."
  
  That's the discussion that should happen around privilege: no blame, just a calm explanation of how it works.
  
  But the mens-rights groups take that same anger that the "Social justice warriors" take and aim it back at women. The women's rights movement hasn't taken anything away, it has given men a chance to correct a few of the wrongs we see happening: male rape (both in and out of prison) is a crazy important and understudied matter. Domestic assault is an important and understudied matter.
  
  But you can't start a discussion about these issues when you're calling women whiny whores and accusing them of using their feminine wiles to control men. It not only sounds ridiculous, but it undermines the entire point of your platform.