Surely it is ironic that an article about single parenting is based on misconceptions…

But haven't you got the social contract thing wrong?

"Because in a liberal-democratic society, which is defined by, and rightly takes pride in, individual rights for all, this makes some individuals – the childfree and the married – "more equal than others". It means that the a priori assumption of freedom and equality for all is not maintained for those (female) individuals who are raising children outside the institution of marriage…"

Surely the assumption of freedom is that of freedom from government interference? That is, the government's freedom from the responsibility for your individual actions and choices.

In other words, there is no problem with you having as many children as you can afford to raise properly.

And the complaint of inequality with the 'childfree and the married' is illogical unless you were coerced into 'raising children outside the institution of marriage'. Alternatively, if society was structured differently and you were successful in your 'Application to Breed Outside the Institution of Marriage Licence' you would have an a priori point about some being more equal than others.

I would never wish to see the innocent suffer for the decisions and actions of others, so maybe what we need as a society are things like 'divorce insurance' to cover the costs of caring for a child in the event of single parenting. Maybe a HECS style program that would provide the poor child with sufficient income now which they could repay to the government throughout their working life?

Obviously the Industrial Revolution/Victorian era option of sending them down the coal mines isn't viable in an era when we are trying to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

Your claims "that our social contract is underscored with a sexual contract"" and "It is true that single mothers are the wives of the nation" – only make sense if you were screwed by the government before you became a mother rather than afterwards.

Whining about not getting enough of other people's money. Shameful.

Petra, how about posting a copy of this alleged “social contract”? I’m sure I never signed it. In fact it’s a complete and utter fiction. You can only allege it exists after you have refuted each of these arguments point by point: http://economics.org.au/2010/08/no-social-contract/ Go ahead. Until you can, you are lying, and have lost the argument.

Secondly, Petra never mentions the fact that all the income she wants to get her hands on was taken from other people by threats of violence. The inequality this imposes on society, the unfair division into two classes, is far greater than any inequality or unfairness she complains about, and this negates her thesis.

Thirdly, Petra always has an option she never mentioned. She can be responsible for her own choices and her own reproductive behaviour, can’t she? Did it ever occur to her that other people, who are taking responsibility for their own reproductive behaviour, can’t have children because they are being mulcted to pay for her live at others’ expense?

Fourthly, the entire basis of her thesis is that the sexes are and should be equal. This proposition is factually untrue - hence her article. And she provides no reason why it should be.

Fifthly, she forgets that the moral and legal obligation on a man to provide for the upkeep of his offspring – let alone someone else's - is the keystone of the patriarchy she is intent on pulling down. The gist of her argument is that women should have all the advantages of the feminist dispensation and of the patriarchy, while men should have the liabilities of both. All this is to be backed by unprovoked and unequal force.

Sixthly, her income that was looted from someone more productive and responsible than her, was only “woefully inadequate” from the point of view of an entitled dependent, which she isn’t.

Prostitution is legal. Single mothers always have the option of getting child support the way they did before the dreaded patriarchy came along. Why should Petra's sexual morality be imposed by force on others against their will?

Wm Trevor,
Good one, I'd prepared a rant along the same lines but it's now redundant.
Petra's lifestyle choices are supported by the state and funds are taken by force (if necessary) from her ex partner, does she realise that people like my wife and I who choose to be self employed so that we're around to raise our daughters get absolutely no help from the state or any other third party?
Hey here's an idea, how about a scheme where we small business people send a copy of our invoices to the government, they pay us and then they collect the money from our debtors so that we don't have to max out our cards while waiting to be paid ?
Sound fair?

…The plight of the Single Mother is a subject I wholeheartedly support. This country, (under Labor, (as one would least expect)), has abandoned Single Mothers of this country in favor of financing (to the tune of billions of dollars), irrational quasi-immigration programs of boat people (by the thousands)! Single Mothers simply pay the price for this folly.

…Only this morning I endured an interview with Julia Gillard on ABC television, explaining away with the accustomed lies and half-truths, the invented wisdom of reducing the income of single families, as she unflinchingly projected the changes to single parent benefits as a “favor” to them.

…Gillard is the most “despicable” of women. She leaves Margret Thatcher in the shade for guile! In psychiatric terms Gillard would be classified psychopathic, I have not a single doubt!

As a single mother who also only has one child I am apalled at this article.

When a child goes to school the mother can return to work fulltime as there is before and after school care. Indeed there is also daycare before the child is of school age. I remember how my daugther just loved daycare because she made so many friends and had a wonderful time. I was able to spend quality time with her in the evenings and on the weekends while working full time. This continued on when she was at school with the use of before and after school care. My daughter and I have a close and loving relationship.

What did horrify me about this article is that this mother who has only one child is of the view that all single mothers should get a handout. She appears to belibe that it is her right to work part time and then get the rest of the money she needs to live from the government.

Of course not all single mothers only have one child and the more children a single mother has the more challenging it is to balance everything and make ends meet, so I am not in position to really understand how difficult it is for those mothers. However, as a single mother with only one child I have always worked full time. I do not expect handouts to make my life comfortable so I can work part time and have free time while my daugther is at school during the day. If I need money I work for it. I do not believe that I have a right to just work part time and then expect the government to subsidise me with extra funds.

The first two comments on this article cause me concern. The best societies take care of the children in their society irrespective of how those children came into being.

How can a society consider itself a just society, if it doesn't at least strive towards offering children equal opportunity?
The two commentators, and any other readers with those thoughts, need to read the German study into social justice in the 31 OECD countries. The chart was first published in the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/opinion/blow-americas-exploding-pipe-dream.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212
http://www.sgi-network.org/pdf/SGI11_Social_Justice_OECD.pdf

The best six countries were all Northern European, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and The Netherlands. Australia rated 21st, mainly because of its poor level of care for the disadvantaged. The USA rated 27th, only ahead of Chile, Greece, Mexico and Turkey.
Anyone who thinks government and taxes are a burden doesn't realize that without such they themselves would not have benefited form the storehouse of knowledge and the justice that these make available and, if marooned, would have been as "Man Friday" rather than Robinson Crusoe.

I have been lucky enough to have been able to provide well for my (current) retirement years. Part of my ongoing income is from houses let to single mothers at significant discounts from the market rent rates.

I am grateful that I was raised in a family with both parents present and that I was taught, by example, to be charitable.

Petra,

The issues you raise are fair. Single parenting and the dichotomy of required for work vs raising children is not and has not been resolved fairly or adequately.

Where I feel you could improve the argument is, I believe in arguing the point from a whole of society view. Had you not taken women only approach to the issue (there are many single fathers out there in the same situation) you would more broadly attract support. By focusing on the women’s side, you attract the ire of the opposition (so to speak).

If there is something incorrect about this observation, please identify it and I shall reconsider my position.

Foyle
You have completely confused charitable with violence-based transactions.

And you should go right ahead and voluntarily fund all the charitable handouts to single mothers that you think others should be forced into paying. They may have other values they are trying to achieve - values more worthy than yours.

...Good-onya Foyle: A true philanthropist.

I'm more sympathetic than earlier posters even though I believe welfare for 'supporting parents' needs to be tightened.

There are women (and men) who through no fault of their own are left 'holding the baby' and some. On the other hand there are women rorting the system - lots of them. Admittedly most are of low socio-economic status, poorly educated, below average intellect and often come from family backgrounds where welfare dependence is high and they see having a baby, with or without a 'stable' partner as a 'natural' thing. In the face of poor work culture and prospects and an expectation that welfare will support them, having a brat or 2 or 3 or more, often with different fathers seems a fair career choice, and right now policy supports that choice. In between, a lot of people and their kids who will need support for a period of time until they are able to get their lives in order.

While I don't wish to see families disadvantaged there has to be some accountability. I'd suggest encouraging reproductive responsibility by limiting claims for the payment to the number of children the parent has at that time and while that person remains on a welfare payment, no further payment for new additions. To be able to claim for any more children the condition should be to be off welfare at least 12 months. Contraception should be made available free or highly subsidised for these parents.

As a taxpayer all my life I am resentful that some people feel it their right to live off the hard work of others as a lifestyle. As a person with a past career in public health, I've also seen the hardship and struggles of genuine people trying to live on welfare and battling health problems themselves or those of dependents. Perhaps what is needed is less of a "Blanket Approach" and more individual assessment.

I must agree with diver dan regards the obscene amounts of money wasted on illegal immigrants when needy Australians are being hung out to dry.

Need another John Howard ... desperately

It is the feeling of entitlement that comes from this article that gets up my nose.

As a bloke trying to make a living from a farm when some when a couple of my kids were at school, my kids had to miss some school excursions, when money was just not there. However I never thought others should have to kick in for this.

When I think of my kids now struggling to meet mortgage payments, feed & educate their kids, & cover those optional extras the kids would like, & not managing some times, my hackles rise. Why should these women expect to be funded by them, to the things they can’t afford themselves?

I believe the labour of child birth is quite high. However it should not be considered the end of the effort of child rearing, but only the start. It is then beholden of the parents to earn the ongoing costs involved.

Here we have a lady who has used the taxes of many to fund her education, to enable her to achieve a well-paid comfortable existence. I wonder how many taxpayers kids missed out on some of the benefits her kids received courtesy of those very taxpayers who funder her, due to the cost of supporting her & all the others?

This is an important article on an important issue. Petra has well documented the realities of people under the poverty line being placed in greater poverty. There are two points that stood out as significant for me. One, that single mothers aren't on an equal playing field for employment. They are constrained by time, money and often psychological damage from years of abuse, non-appreciation for their efforts, stigma and the like. The rates of pay they might get can barely cover the childcare, especially if they have more than one.

Two, what about the quality of life for children who are forced to live in even greater poverty or, if their parent works, have little time for emotional nourishment and relaxation outside a harried hour or two between when their mum (or single dad) collects them from care and bedtime?

We need to get over this notion that having children is a choice and that they are and individual's responsibility. Life histories, social pressure and biological pulls make having children a very grey kind of choice. And, whether you like it or not, they are everyone's children simply because the psychological quality and employable skills of those 25% of kids being raised by single parents are our future: our future workers, neighbours, and in-laws. To the farmer who couldn't afford to send his kids on all school camps but asked for no assistance, good on you but in all truth, research shows that in non-participation of extra-curricular activities would have disconnected your kids, just a little more, from their peers and disadvantaged them in many ways.

Wasn't the boy who killed heaps of kids at Columbine High a latchkey kid whose mother was forced, by a work for the dole scheme, to spend 14 hours a day away from home?

The state should spend money now to care for mothers who care for the children of the nation or face the consequences of greater costs, in health care and otherwise...

I strongly support the point Reason makes that a whole of society approach rather than mothers only would have helped.

Aa a single dad who has provided for his son and also been in the clutches of CSA for a period last year I can assure you that you really are only telling part of the story.Especially the link to the vile comments in the Deadbeat dad definition. Guaranteed to get up the nose of decent dad who have had dalings with that abusive organisation.

Its messy from both sides if the other parent has a history of not working and or playing the system. A wealthy parent can avoid financial responsibility for their children if their wealth is not via earned income, a non resident parent can be driven to that same poverty and despair you describe by a formula which takes no account of actual circumstances.

There are dead beat dads around but there are also dead beat mums, gender is not an indicator of character. Time to stop the 'just my gender' stuff and start to work towards systems that treat parents fairly and with similar responsibilities regardless of their gender or work preferences.

Also time to accept that everything comes at a cost, that a choice not to work (while being supported by the taxpayer) is at a cost to those who do work. Its at a cost to parents who may need to work exta hours to meet their committments as well as the tax bill they cop.
Less time with their own kids so you can have more time with yours, can't imagine why that might bother some people.

R0bert

Why complain when I see you are supporting a pet as well, dogs or cats cost a lot there is one big saving you can make.

If you can't afford to have children don't have them and expect taxpayers to support you all in a comfortable (not affluent) lifestyle.

Welcome to the real Labor values.

Unfortunately, promises must be kept.

If at the time a child was conceived the government promised to support it financially, and the parents too, should they become single, then a deal is a deal - a bad deal, yet a deal.

While it was right to stop those parenting payments, it was not right to do it at such short notice. There should be a minimum of 9 months between pronouncing of worsening of children/parent "rights", while existing parents or already-pregnant women/couples should not be affected.

In the future, with proper notice, government should not pay for people to have new children. If one wants children, that's their private business and they must pay for EVERYTHING, including birth, health, education, care and loss of employment opportunities. If the children/parents then starve and Foyle doesn't offer his hand to help them, then so be it, let them. Also, if children are unwanted by their parents and nobody else steps in to adopt them, then parents should be able to kill their baby: the world is already far too overpopulated with humans.

Regarding the so-called "social contract", obviously there isn't any written, but it is more complex than that: the moment one chooses to use the money which governments print, they in fact sign an implicit contract with the government. In other words, using the government's money has strings attached and in theory, the government could impose any conditions, including taxes, on the money it issued. But then it really gets even more complicated still because the Australian government blocks by legislation any possibility of living money-free, so the bottom line is that government is a violent thug based on no morality except "might is right". The problem then is not in the tax, but in the legal requirement to earn and use money in the first place.

It is interesting that the government runs a double standard on this issue.

The income of partners is not taken into account when calculating child support, it is in welfare. Someone can marry a millionaire and either not pay child support or receive it at the maximum rate if they have a history of not working.

There is no pressure on parents with a history of not working to provide for their children under the child support formula (regardless if they have the care of the children or not).

There is no pressure for parents without kids in their care or kids over 8 to provide for their children regardless of how much it impacts on the other parent if they have not previously worked much.

R0bert

Robert,
I'm pretty sure fathers who don't have custody of their kids get stung for child support once they earn over a certain amount, regardless of any informal arrangement they have with the mother.
A friend of mine has been paying 800 a month to the mother of his son since he was born, he offered it and she accepted and the situation was working just fine.
Then last year he had the good fortune to land a big project which netted him about 40,000 more than he'd earned previously, so he's now been pinged for nine grand from Child Support. I work with him a lot and between us we've had less than two weeks work since Christmas, so he's still had to make the cash payment, which the mother of his son doesn't declare to Centrelink as well as a huge chunk of his income on top. Now this child was not the result of any relationship they had a one night stand, she got pregnant and since she was from interstate he only found out about it via a third party when the child was nine months old but he stepped up and has regular contact with the boy who's now 17 years old.
Now is that "fair"? A man has no choice in whether he becomes a father or not, his reproductive rights are completely dependant upon the integrity of a thin latex membrane. If woman has the legal right to choose (within a certain time limit) whether to be a parent or not regardless of the wishes of the father shouldn't a man be able to legally reject paternity within that same time limit if he doesn't consent to the pregnancy?
Let's make things really equal, say within the first trimester either parent can legally opt out of the arrangement without requiring the consent of the other, how would that go down with the author?

Jay
It's heading in the right direction, but it doesn't go far enough.

Parental responsibility in its very nature is opt-in, not opt-out. A woman chooses whether to have sex, whether to use contraception, whether to abort, whether to adopt out, and whether or not to support it, and then having passed through all those decisions has the gall and the legal "right" [translation: immoral power] to force the father to pay whether he chooses to or not.

There is a simple ethical practical solution that does not require any policy response whatsoever. It freedom: remember that forgotten concept? Those who want to bring up any given child, do so; those who don't, don't. But if you choose to, you have no right to force anyone else to pay for your choices.

Talk about children starving is utter nonsense. There's far more people who want to adopt than there are children available for adoption. If a mother would rather her child starve rather than give it up to someone who is willing and able to care for it better than her, then that is a matter for child welfare, simple as that. She has no right to hold the child hostage for her political beliefs in treating the man as a money object.

The "whole of society" line is nonsense too. Human society doesn't stop at the border. Those who argue that line, never explain why the nation-state should be the deciding entity. Don't all the single mothers of Asia, Africa and South America have the equal "right" to the same handouts?

You need to justify the use of force to justify the use of policy. None of the supporters of child support do that. They simply reason that, because they want something, therefore they're justified in using force to get it: the moral reasoning of an infant.

What's actually wrong with a "sexual contract", assuming informed consent?

Jay despite my passion to see the nightmare that is the so called child support system discussed on OLO I'm trying to only touch on it on this thread where it seems to have some relevance to the original topic (see how I go with that).

I agree that as far as practical both parents should have a similar level of say about an ongoing responsibility for a child. I believe that the final say in regards to termination lies with the mother but at any point where she has the option of either terminating the pregnancy or giving the child up for adoption the father should have the option to opt out of further responsibility.

Its trickier for those in a relationship when the child is conceived, even if a wish to not have children or not yet had been made very clear and you had been assured that a partner was on contraception if they have decided they wanted a child anyway and stopped taking contraception then its a brave man who says no thanks at that point. Roll on reliable and reversible male contraception (that does not seriously diminish the experience) and that argument goes away.

As far as possible the choices and responsibilities which are part of being parents in an intact family should be available to parents when a relationship breaks down.

I suspect that a fair percentage of the "deadbeat dad" issue http://m.urbandictionary.com/#define?term=deadbeat%20dad is people getting their backs up at the extremes of a very unjust system. Not all, there are those who avoid their responsibilities to their children regardless of the say they had in the existence of those children.

R0bert

There's nothing wrong with a sexual contract, only the remedy of specific performance would not be available at law or in equity, so the remedy for breach would be damages, not sex.

There's nothing wrong with a reproductive contract either. If a couple enter an agreement to be liable for the care for any resulting offspring, then that should be enforceable, if all the elements of contract are present.

But that's not what Petra and her supporters are arguing. They're saying people should be forced into it when they *didn't* agree: specifically when there is no contract. All of a sudden, the need for consent and equal rights goes out the window, and they're explicitly arguing that women, because they are women, deserve special consideration backed up by unequal force to try to even up the inequality caused by nature. but all that proves is that the sexes are not equal!

The solution is to abolish any compulsion on anyone to pay for anyone else's child: the sole parents pension and family tax benefit, the Child Support Act (which was only brought in because of government's failure to fund the sole parents' pension), and the De Facto Relationships Act. This way the only people liable to pay would be those who had *actually* contracted.

This would make the whole field fairer and more equal.

Legitimacy of children was developed to protect *men's* human rights. The man has a right to choose which child should have the benefit of his contribution, and to receive valuable consideration because of it. Those who argue the higher social value of the child need to put their money where their mouth is.

Good lord. We are talking about people, when did everyone stop caring about others who exist beyond there own inner circle. We live in a community, our taxes pay for the roads and health care and so on and on.

I am personally disgusted by some of the attitudes here I have to say. You really think that single parents of children who are over the age of 8 should consider adopting them out? WT?

Urghhh.

Petra I thought you hit on a lot of really important points and I thank you for writing this.

And no, I'm not affected by the cuts. But you know what, I live in this community, this society and I'm not blind. I realise that the implication of these cuts will affect us all in the long term.

*their

sorry hate spelling errors!

Yes I agree with you Kate4.

The Government may well think it is 'saving' all this money they normally spend on single parents and their children, but the long term consequences of plunging some of these families into even more poverty may well come bak to bite us all.
Poverty can breed criminals.

I don't want to get into an argument about single mothers versus the fathers of their kids, because this article is not about that subject.
It is all about how some single mothers won't be able to be forced into the workforce by a Government hell bent on getting them all off welfare payments.

Many of these women have never worked, and for various reasons, including physical or mental health disorders, or poor family backgrounds themselves, will find it near impossible to get into the workforce.

While I agree in principle that it is certainly better to be working in a paid job rather than relying on welfare payments, I realise that many people just aren't going to be able to work.

We should certainly come down hard on 'dole bludgers' as such, but we shouldn't severely limit the incomes of those directly responsible for children.

It's not the kids fault if their parents are unwilling or unable to work.
Our country is well off enough to at least make sure our children are looked after for at least their basic needs.

Suseonline,
Poverty doesn't breed criminals, criminals create poverty, materialistic arguments on this issue are no longer viable because we've seen the profound dysgenic effects of the state trying to raise "those less fortunate" up to the level of the mentally competent mainstream.
People are poor because they're dumb and they're dumb because their parents were dumb too, they commit crimes because they lack the intelligence and emotional mobility to navigate the world.
You've obviously never lived among "houso's", some do all right, some don't but the morons will always try to drag down the achievers, you've no idea how big a role jealousy and spite play in the shaping lives of the morons on the bottom of the heap. If a good kid has something nice the jealous moron wants it too, if he can't get nice things of his own he'll try to steal from the good kid, if the good kid objects the moron will smash the valued items out of spite and declare the victim "stuck up".

Is this whining woman serious? She seriously thinks it's everybody else's responsibility to support her choices.

I wonder if we will ask ourselves the hard questions about our society before it's too late.

Women make up about 60% of our graduates now. This represents a huge investment in education on the part of society. Yet women work less hours than men, take more breaks from work, take more sick leave and then retire earlier. What a waste of education.

Now she feels entitled to be supported by taxpayers (read: the men who work longer, takes less sick leave, do more dangerous and remote jobs and then die earlier)!!

What a joke.

And Fukuyama was absolutely right about women being married to the state. Surely there could be no greater contribution to the breakdown of the family than the introduction of single mother payments. Now when women feel their husbands don't 'value' them enough, they 'move on' to someone else. Of course, women can 'move on' whenever they like because their ex husband or the state (read: male taxpayers) are just expected to pick up the bill.

If she was so worried about her child she could have done what men do - take a job, any job, that pays the f*&king bills. Work remote, work dangerous, move, do something you hate. But make ends meet.

That is called taking responsibility. What the author does, like so many 'educated' women, is called self-entitled whining.

beautiful society the feminist and secularist are in the process of creating.

Ya know, I believe the author was trying to be practical and realistic, and the reality is you can't just change the playing field overnight. What Gillard and Swan may have in mind is beside the point, this is just a very bad move, and the direct consequences for many single parents, male or female, will be dire - a fact which cannot be disputed.

Regarding those who some consider to be 'milking' the system - those Suze refers to who may never be able to hold down a job, don't want to, have no intention to - they are a reality, and their kids deserve reasonable opportunity (God knows they're going to need it more than most), and again, you can't just change the playing field overnight.
If there needs to be some sort of 'assessment' system - whereby those who really do have a choice of taking a decent job, but choose not to, may be 'penalized', but those who don't have a choice are not penalized (and may even warrant extra assistance) - ok, but this also would have to be 'phased-in'.
As for those who shouldn't really have more than one child (or maybe none at all), let's be real, what does anyone propose? Eugenics? Or, do we need to try education, useful employment, and family planning? Either way, threats or withdrawal of support will be inflicting cruel and unconscionable punishment on innocent children.

As for dads - intentional or otherwise - you do the job, you bear the consequences. Blaming the female for not taking 'precautions' is just such a typical male cop-out. Time to grow up. (A very big ask for some, I know.) Should men (or women) who don't work be sterilized? You know the answer to that - this is not 'barbarian central', thankfully. Parenting payments - a judicial assessment issue.

We may want a better society, but punishing the weak is not the way to accomplish it. Reform has to be meaningful for all, has to be just, and will take time. (And, Gillard/Swan - pitiful. Where are these jobs?)

As far as I can make out, it was "already" a requirement that single parents sought employment after their children turned 8.

The crowning achievement of the Gillard government in pushing parents onto Newstart has been the opportunity to rip a chunk of their financial support off them and their children....all the other criteria were set in place under the Parenting Payment.

The only thing that has really changed is the amount of money they receive.

I agree with the others that it's a societal thing.

(Strangely enough, it was the Clinton administration in the US who implemented a similar austerity on single parents...but then apparently "Its the economy, stupid."

I wonder how long it will take to see more "families" living on the streets or in their cars?

And is that really what we, as an affluent society, want to see?

l think its relevant to point out that contrary to what was claimed earlier the article does pit mothers against fathers. The author makes a number of comments to set that up.

The link to the vile site of definitions for 'deadbeat dad' being one but she also makes a number of other comments to set up that conflict
'This is also why single parents - and here I am referring specifically to mothers - find it harder to work than partnered parents' - as a father who is a single parent and who works in an industry that does not generally allow for part time work I don't see that the issue is specifically mothers.

'Women balancing very low incomes, complex and often contradictory time demands, employer prejudices, irresponsible, abusive and absent ex-partners, sole responsibility for child care, and inflexible work schedules' and men don't face those same issues.

'What is mentioned less is that this is a women's human rights issue because it essentially makes it very difficult to leave a marriage (or be left or never marry in the first place) if you are a woman with children.' and the all to frequent loss of time with children, punative property settlements and child support formulas don't make it difficult for men to leave a relationship gone bad if they have children?

I agree that whats being done by the government appears to be handled poorly, that its not easy balancing single parenting and full time work and with a range of other concerns raised in the article.

I don't accept that its all as one sided as the author suggests nor do I agree that its the responsibility of others to pay for individial preferences.

Society can do better in facilitating better options for all parents, options for that have been discussed before on OLO and may be due for a revisit.

R0bert

Thanks Runner... Another "classic" observation as usual! Society does have a way of consuming itself, I am sure you would agree: The natural progression of humanity is to "devolve" to war, with consequential death and destruction! Humans a very unforgiving of intrusions into the staus-quo straight-jacket.

So many issues, so many points of view… one of the comments that stood out included:

* “Poverty doesn't breed criminals, criminals create poverty”; and

Yet you then state:

“if he can't get nice things of his own he'll try to steal from the good kid”.

Can you please explain how one is not representative of the other?

Obviously this law doesn’t go far enough. It requires a sunset clause.

After 3 years on parenting payment aid should be terminated, & the child surrendered for adoption. This would obviously be in the best interest of the child, as the parent, in 3 years, has proved they are incapable of providing a good roll model for the child.

The payment should not be available to students, who already have access to higher than new start payments in Austudy. Austudy should not be available to single parents, as the fact they CHOSE to study, rather than put their best efforts into supporting their child, shows where their interests are.

Rather than bitching, these ladies should go down on their knees & give thanks that Ozzie men have been gentle enough to allow themselves to be exploited by conniving women for so long.

<<After 3 years on parenting payment aid should be terminated, & the child surrendered for adoption.>>

Already missing the stolen generation?

Should children then have nightmares for 3 years of being taken away from their family?
As a child I would prefer to starve to death and stay with my parents, poor as they are.
Better still, I would find a job myself to help my family rather than being torn apart from them.
Even offering my body to paedophiles would be a better option.

How wonderful, Hasbeen, you are going to find many children hanging or jumping from roofs or deliberately throwing themselves under cars and trains.

<<as the parent, in 3 years, has proved they are incapable of providing a good roll model for the child.>>

They may be wonderful loving parents, teaching their children about those things that really matter in life - such as love, kindness, independent thinking, purity, spirituality and seeking God, rather than about making $$'s, but all you care is how to indoctrinate children into becoming part of your "work-force" when they grow, so that you can keep your economy growing forever. Shame!

I felt that this well-argued post deserved a response from me, and mine is almost as long, so it's on my website (www.donaitkin.com).

This is a very difficult social issue, and like jails and road safety, we mostly don't want to know about it. I don't agree with everything the author has said, but hers is a thoughtful and poignant essay that needs to be taken seriously.

I agree with one commenter that we need a reliable and reversible male contraceptive, which men universally take unless they are in a relationship that is prepared for a baby, and will welcome it lovingly and resourcefully.

Yuyutsu,

Shame is right - regarding Hasbeen's recent sentiment.

However, it's keeping in line with his equally grotesque sentiment of locking asylum seekers in a room with a knife.

One would hope his views aren't representative of a changing society...because if they are then civilisation as we know it is going straight down the gurgler.

It seems the only things that escape from him which aren't resident of the dank depths of his special brand of "morality" are the myriad tales of his own renown and the discordant tones of him blowing his own trumpet.

Yuyutsu I'm all in favor of people teaching those wonderful things to their kids. I am not however in favor of them assuming some god given right to expect someone else to pay for them to do it. We are not yet in a position to pay people to breed.

I am also in favor of people teaching their kids to be independent, self-supporting members of society, not bludgers. How you people can justify, even in your own minds, the idea that some single parents, working to support themselves & their kids, should be poorer by paying the taxes to support the bludger single parents, I really can’t understand.

Dear Hasbeen,

<<I am not however in favor of them assuming some god given right to expect someone else to pay for them to do it. We are not yet in a position to pay people to breed.>>

They do have the right to expect because they were so promised.
Was it right to promise them money for breeding? of course not, but it was already done and those ladies (and a few gentlemen too) acted on that promise, which must not be dishonoured retroactively.

In the future, for sure, there should be no incentive whatsoever to populate this planet with more humans.

<<I am also in favor of people teaching their kids to be independent, self-supporting members of society,>>

There's a bit of a contradiction here: either one is truly independent and self-supporting or one is a member of society (or as many do, juggle uncomfortably between the two).

<<the idea that some single parents, working to support themselves & their kids, should be poorer by paying the taxes to support the bludger single parents, I really can’t understand.>>

The root of the problem is using the money which the government prints/issues.
If you kept your wealth in gold or in cattle and the like, then nobody should have a right to tax you, but those who found it convenient to deal with the devil and use their currency, should not complain that it has strings attached, including the requirement to pay tax as they see fit.

We do pay people to breed - its called the baby bonus and anyone can see that the lure of a $5000 handout has been a huge inducement to breed for those on welfare and with few prospects of employment. If we ditched the baby bonus that money could be redirected into helping single parents return to the workforce so they and their children can get of the welfare treadmill.

Yuyutsu, "The root of the problem is using the money which the government prints/issues.
If you kept your wealth in gold or in cattle and the like, then nobody should have a right to tax you, but those who found it convenient to deal with the devil and use their currency, should not complain that it has strings attached, including the requirement to pay tax as they see fit".

I am afraid, not being an arts graduate, & wanting to split hairs, I can not see how a moral argument is altered by whether or not one uses the coin of the realm. Either you approve of some single parents being poorer so some can sit on their butts, & grow fat, or you don't.

In the case in point, of our author, dozens of check out chicks, many supporting mothers, were made poorer, so she could indulge herself in obtaining a degree. She is now much better off than those check out chicks can ever hope to be.

If she was now required to repay the full cost of her education, there may be some justice in the transaction. However that is not the case. Those same check out chicks had to spring for most of that cost, while funding her child child rearing time as well.

I do find it amazing that some lefties consider me hard. All I can see is a totally immoral hand out/entitlement system, reinforced by some strange cumforting belief that it is only the rich paying.

Dear Hasbeen,

You consider this hair-splitting, but the one who robs off the wages of the check-out-chicks is not Petra, but the government - and you know what, the money that this government gives to Petra and her fellow single-mothers, is only a drop in the ocean of unfair and unsubstantiated expenses that this government makes off the robbed wages of check-out-chicks.
What allows the government to do so, is all those who voluntarily use and have faith in the currency that they print.

Petra was offered a deal: money for raising kids.
Petra accepted the deal and kept her part - she is not to blame.
The only one to blame is the body which offered her that money out of other people's pockets, including the check-out-chicks'.

Yuyutsu
Your reasoning is right up until, but excluding, the idea that using money somehow constitutes consent to be defrauded by government manipulating the supply and distribution of money.

No it doesn't. People use the government's money because the legal tender laws make it a criminal offence for any other better competitor to supply other better money; and illegal for people to use such other better money. You can't build any theory of consent on that!

All
The hypocrisy of those supporting coerced payments to single mothers is appalling.

The pretension that this is about children is completely false, because all the support of children they clam to support, could be paid for by them voluntarily! That's exactly what they don't want and are determined to avoid by advocating forcing others, who don't agree with them, to pay . These people stand for force and nothing but force because in the final analysis, that's all that government can bring to the table. Everything else society can supply itself. But notice how they don't mention that anywhere at all, and when it's pointed out, they try to ignore and evade it? Strip aside their fluffed-up indignation and their argument is nothing but brute force, falsely parading as the social principle.

The "whole of society" argument is palpable nonsense. Obviously the whole of society can't be relieved of the need to work, by living at someone else's expense. In its nature it can only be the comfortable prerogative of a privileged minority. Do they share their confiscated loot with the single mothers of the real whole of society - the rest of the world? - of course not!

Jardine K Jardine
<Parental responsibility in its very nature is opt-in, not opt-out. A woman chooses whether to have sex, whether to use contraception, whether to abort, whether to adopt out, and whether or not to support it, and then having passed through all those decisions has the gall and the legal "right" [translation: immoral power] to force the father to pay whether he chooses to or not.>

AS a man do you take any responsibility at all? A man also chooses to have sex, also whether to use contraception, maybe not whether to abort but I have known cases where the man has insisted on wanting the woman to abort because he didn’t want to be tied down by any responsibility. That is
more common than is realised.

If having not used contraception you father a child, then your responsibility along with the mother is to support that child. Assuming you are not the one doing the 24hour daycare of the child then you have to contribute somehow, because believe me, the care of young babies and children is indeed a 24hour job. It sounds to me like you don’t understand that and that says to me you have never had full time responsibility for caring for a child under five. And don’t try and throw up a red herring about the child being 8years, you know exactly what I mean by the above.

Please! when you are old, don’t expect other people’s children who you take no responsibility for,to nurse you, or serve you in shops, go to war to protect you, or provide a customer base for any business you may run or depend on for a job. In fact why don’t you go and live
out in the desert somewhere, where there is no society around you.
Wake up and see the big picture. What is it you are aiming for, tribal extinction?

Support the children of this country you need them desperately, just like the rest of us. Why should so called men's work be paid and women's work be considered unworthy of payment?

...Irrespective of ones political leanings, Adam Bandt must be admired. His proposal to boost the single parent pension by $127 pw must give single parents some glimmer of hope.

...Shame for the Greens is their pathetic stand on Homosexuality and border security. Now is the time to move to the center for the "Greens", as their German counterparts have done, by replacing the "ridiculous" with the "acceptable" in their policy position: Then they too will gain the necessary traction to be a credible alternative.

Cherful
Stop trying to squirm out of the issue. You need to justify the use of force to treat men as a money object. You haven't. You lose the argument.

PS from above:

...A "Red-Green" Alliance which will enable them to off-load the responsibility of the above mentioned negative and unattractive policies.

HASBEEN

If those check-out chicks have any brains then they will
realize that if ever they marry and have children and the husband
starts acting like a lot of men do and don't pull their weight,
then they could very easily end up as single mothers treated
with the contempt that all mothers are treated with in this country.

Why were all those adds run recently on TV trying to
educate men, how to act as fathers. "Don't be a dead-beat dad".
Obviously it is well understood in this country that a lot of
men are not good at being fathers.

People look down their noses at women with children in crowds, they
should also realize that for every single mother,divorced mother
or unwed mother in the crowd there are also the same equivalent
single fathers, divorced fathers and what about all the unwed fathers?
shock! horror! No children clinging to their shirt tails but they
are non-the-less still skulking in the crowd. Acting like all those mothers conceive the children by themselves.

Takes two to tango people.

Jardine K Jardine

So are you saying that men should not support the children
they father. They have 3children with one woman and the next
minute they have another partner and 2children with that woman.

If they are going to practice a kind of serial polygamy
they should realise they have to support all the children, instead
of trying to squirm out of their responsibility to their first
lot of children.

This is the actual problem in this country but it is the women
left holding the babies and being blamed for it.

See what a mess the rest of the world is in, because of male
attitudes, in male dominated societies. They are as thick
as a brick. They have this huge portion of their front brain
that is preoccupied only with sex. When women talk 14 sites
on both side of their brains light up. In men only 4light up.

"So are you saying that men should not support the children
they father. "

No. If you had bothered to read what I said, you would understand that's not what's in issue.

The fact that people exist does not justify the use of force to get what you want.

The rest of what you say is either failing to understand the issue, or deliberately misrepresenting it.

Dear Jardine,

<<Your reasoning is right up until, but excluding, the idea that using money somehow constitutes consent to be defrauded by government manipulating the supply and distribution of money.>>

Yes, I did mention above that the issue is even more complex, that I was barely scratching the surface. I wrote (Thursday, 21 February 2013 4:07:57 PM): "But then it really gets even more complicated still because the Australian government blocks by legislation any possibility of living money-free, so the bottom line is that government is a violent thug based on no morality except "might is right"."

<<People use the government's money because the legal tender laws make it a criminal offence for any other better competitor to supply other better money; and illegal for people to use such other better money. You can't build any theory of consent on that!>>

Yes, this is extremely evil, but two evils do not cancel each other.

You still have the option to disobey the law (both overtly and covertly).
You still have the option to not use money at all.
You still have the option to contribute to others freely, not asking for any currency in return, then if others help you too, you survive, otherwise you incur hardships and may even die, but then you die free!

In nature there are predators. That's what the government is. One option could be to stay up a tree and starve, others choose to disclose to the predator the presence and location of another animal, so it will prey on it instead, allowing you to climb down and forage/drink. That's what have come of us!

Cherful, I'm sure you're right about women talking from 14 sites. I'll bet they are talking a different conversation from each one too.

I'll bet that is the main reason some men do run away, to get away from all that talking.

About the only good thing about mobile phones is the amount of time so many women spend mucking with them. Many blokes can now get a bit of peace.

Oh, did you see the statistics released in the US recently on DNA testing. Apparently 14% of the kids tested were not the progeny of the bloke who was paying for them, & claimed to be the farther.

It appears there is quite a bit of hanky panky going on amongst those ladies, who will use any meal ticket available.

Every time I get a notification that a new comment has been made I come here with a sense of dread. What horrible inhumane comment, or idea is going to be expressed? Where on earth do these people come from? Why are they not able to consider the welfare of another? Where is the humanity?

I hesitate to post for I know that I will only inflame you and give you more reason to express your hatred of another, express your cruelty of mind. But I shall post this link, and I wonder if any of you might open your minds, engage your imaginations to consider the plight of others who do live in our society and who ought to be treated with humanity at the very least.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/old-prejudices-leave-newstart-recipients-cut-adrift-20120824-24r19.htm

Yuyutsu from a philosophical perspective I don't see that this particular situation is all that different to a myriad other situation. You go into something under one set of conditions and those conditions are changed by someone else or by circumstances.

I'm not aware that there was ever a specific contract to continue the old payment structure. Other people cop hits to their ability to fund the raising of children from a variety of things such as interest rates that change because other people are spending lots, jobs that disppear, slack times in an industry, increased costs earning your income (loss of free carparking where public transport is unworkable for example). The list could be endless.

Whats the cutoff line for saying one circumstance deserves protection from change and another does not?

The real downside in a lot of this is generally government interfers but does not do it well. They want single mums out to work on one hand, on the other they will make it very difficult or expensive to be able to park near a workplace (and public transport is often really substandard in a bunch of ways). We get government putting increased regulation on childcare which drives up costs for mostly little improvement in kids well being. On the one hand we don't protect people from external factors that make it very difficult to make ends meet, on the other hand the government ties peoples hands behind their back with interferance which limits their ability to find their own solutions.

Regarding this decision, from memory I think that the age where parents can legally leave a child unsupervised for a while is 10, eg an age where a kid might be able to make their own way home from school. Perhaps a better age to set as the cutoff for the changes than 8 where the need for out of school hours supervision is still a legal requirement.

R0bert

Kate that link went to a "Page Not Found".

You're still not addressing the issue. If it was really about children, you could pay for it yourself - you and everyone who agrees with you, and that would be the end of the matter. You're rejecting that solution, so please spare us your false pretences to moral superiority, being a more caring person, etc.

The basis of the article was the value of choice and equality and treating people with dignity. But what you and Petra are specifically arguing for is that people should not have a choice, and that they should be forced whether they ever consented or not, that they should be treated like objects to serve others' ends. You have never justified this, never addressed the immorality of using unnecessary force or the social injustice of thus creating two unequal classes of privileged and exploited, never explained why a political solution is better.

You've also never explained who is this "we" you keep referring to. Obviously it doesn't include everyone who disagrees with you, and why doesn't it include the whole world?

Until you've addressed these issues, like Petra, you've lost the argument. Posting links to the SMH that share your assumptions only makes your case worse, not better.

Let's face it. The only reason is because you hope to rely on the State's "might is right". Admit it.

Dear R0bert,

When I was 6 I walked every day to school and back, on my own. It was about 1km away, through my street, a couple of others, an open field (which by the end-of-the-year turned into a building site, so I had to walk around) and a forest.

We didn't have many things, but we used and enjoyed what we had and the environment so much more. Everything used to be simpler then, but things have changed for the worse. The reason, plain and simple - more people.

Technology was developed in order to compensate for the increasing number of people, but then in a vicious cycle, technology allowed more people to live, so their number kept increasing, requiring ever higher-and-higher technology just to survive, such technology that requires centralisation, that cannot be produced by a single household or by a small community - nowadays even by whole nations, forcing everyone on this planet to depend on each other, thus requiring draconian regulations that take away our joy of living. Now children can no longer play outside in the fresh air and grow to be responsible for their physical well-being, but instead brought up glued to little electronic devices while their parents have no time for them because they work harder and harder to serve those machines.

So where do governments come in?

Politicians are moms and dads too, they too feel that something goes very wrong, but they need to keep their job to survive, then to maintain the standard of living they get addicted to. They feel that the social-structure is impossible and must collapse, but every politician is frantic that it wouldn't happen on their own guard. While in other countries governments encourage breeding more children to be used as cannon-fodder for their wars (also a result of over-population), in Australia they need them as cogwheels in their ever-burdened economic machine.

Since giving birth in today's cities is already an act of cruelty, Julia now designed the NBN, to encourage breeding them in the far country, ultimately exporting the city misery to them as well.

Hasbeen it takes two to tango - those 14 percent of children you refer to weren't the result of immaculate conceptions, so why blame only the women?

It is not the screwing around I mind Candide, its screwing a bloke who had nothing to do with it, to pay for the results of her screwing around.

At least if one is going to have to pay the fare, one should get the ride as well.

There was even one case where the feminist lawyer claimed that because the poor bloke had been paying for the kid for 5 years, he had accepted the kid as his & should continue to pay.

Jardine, I know it's a pointless exercise, but your call to all the 'oppressed' to decry 'unjust' government intervention in the lives of ordinary people, should not go without challenge.

>what you and Petra are specifically arguing for is that people should not have a choice, and that they should be forced whether they ever consented or not, that they should be treated like objects to serve others' ends. You have never justified this, never addressed the immorality of using unnecessary force or the social injustice of thus creating two unequal classes of privileged and exploited, never explained why a political solution is better.<

In tribal communities, of which we were all a part not so long ago, tasks, produce, joy and sorrow were all shared, the strong supporting the weak, talents appreciated, and survival of the tribe paramount. But, there were, and are still, bullies - not wanting to share, mocking and even beating the weak. Are you such a bully, Jardine, or do you just not appreciate the benefits of our extended 'tribe' and its necessary mechanisms for 'sharing'?

What shall we limit next? Public education, or healthcare - pay your own way or else? (Like the USA perhaps?) Public housing? Pay up or live on the street? Public order? Form your own vigilante group, carry a gun, and live behind a cyclone fence? Transport? Shall we go on?

We have some who live outside the mainstream: homeless, street-kids, criminals, drug addicts; the 'hunters' who pray on others, and the 'gatherers' who rake the common refuse. Freedom, of a sort, but ideal?

When you rail against government intervention, Jardine, you rail against the foundation of our 'free' society. Why single-out Single Mums and Dads? (Don't forget the dads!) Who to crucify next? Bludgers, malingerers, druggies? They too have a choice, don't they?

Society has a responsibility to the children, irrespective of the 'sins' of the parents; and crime prevention is better than cure.

salpetre, you talk about society's responsibilities but what you mean is men's responsibilities. A number of times on this thread people have talked about responsibilities but never in relation to women. What exactly are women's responsibilities?

There is an almost 20% advantage in the number of women obtaining further education - at an enormous cost to the taxpayer. Yet women work less years, for fewer hours, take more sick leave, take more 'time out' of the workforce and retire earlier than men. What are women's responsibilities here?

Did the author say well now I have a child so study is out of the question, I have to support my child? Somehow the author felt it was everybody else's responsibility to support her choices. So men have responsibility while women have 'choices' (read: entitlement).

What about her relationship and her decision to raise the child alone? Did she think she should compromise and make the relationship work for the good of the child? or Did she think now I have what I always wanted I don't need the encumbrance of a man. He can pay child support, I'll receive benefits from the government and I'll 'move on'. So if she is representative of the majority of relationship break-ups which are initiated by women (around 60% of divorces I think), then again it's a case of men's responsibility but women's entitlement.

It was such a mistake for men to believe that if women were treated as equals they would be responsible. We we dumb enough to take women at their word; to believe that if women said they wanted equality they actually wanted 'equality'. More silly us. We should have realised that women rarely say what they mean (when a man's partner asks if her bum looks big in something the last thing she wants to know is if her bum looks big).

We as a society just seem to find it so hard to ask women to take responsibility for their actions. Instead, it's been a case of the more accommodating men are, the more demanding women are.

Dear Saltpetre,

I am aware that your questions are addressed to Jardine, but there are a few points I just cannot leave unturned.

<<In tribal communities, of which we were all a part not so long ago...>>

The comparison is unfair: membership in tribal communities was voluntary. If you didn't like your tribe, you could just walk off, perhaps finding a different tribe or perhaps roaming the forest alone.

Societies on a national scale do not provide this option.

<<We have some who live outside the mainstream: homeless, street-kids, criminals, drug addicts; the 'hunters' who pray on others, and the 'gatherers' who rake the common refuse.>>

Yes, but why mention only the low-end margins below society, what about the high-end above society? what about hermits and holy-men (and women) who roam and bless the land without asking for anything in return?

<<Society has a responsibility to the children, irrespective of the 'sins' of the parents>>

Really? Even the children of Africa?

No, society is responsible for the children UNDER ITS CARE, not for just any children who never either placed themselves or were placed by their parents under its care.

If anyone here is interested, I wrote another post on this broad subject yesterday. (www.donaitkin.com)

It is complex and many-faceted. I feel that too any of the posts above see it is a simple question. It isn't, at all.

Dear Don,

What many single mothers did, the moment they heard about the new decree, was to desperately go out the street and ask the first man they see, "make me a baby please". That gives them another 8 years, which at the time seems forever, but in fact these too shall pass, eventually, leaving an even bigger hole in their purses.

Single mothers are not to blame, they are only the symptom. It is each and every one of us to blame who desires to be cared for when we are old, passing on the crisis with no concern as to who will care for the multitude of our resulting grandchildren once THEY grow old. Many of us already will have nothing to care for us when we are old but robots.

Yuyutsu
We agree that there is no moral right to government's claimed monopoly power over money. It’s just pure power, and used for systematic legalized fraud.

So there is no more justification to say, if you don’t like it you should leave society, than there is to say, if the statists doesn’t like it they should leave.

I'd like to see that!

Therefore you shouldn’t call on people who don’t consent to submit or live and die in exile from human society. Rather you should call for the abolition of government’s self-granted legal monopoly of pilfering the money supply.

Don
I went to your site and saw that post. It seems to me your approach suffers from the same fatal flaws as Petra’s and Saltpetre’s.

By casting the issue in terms of what “we” think, without ever defining who you mean by that, you seem to imply that the question is automatically a political one, and that the deciding entity should be the Australian government. But that is precisely what’s in issue, and you give no reason for it.

The contrary argument is that the whole thing is not a political problem and government should have no role in doing anything about it. Single motherhood is not some kind of mysterious affliction that strikes from the sky. Single mothers can work for a living like everyone else. There’s lots of work they could do. For starters, they could clean the houses, cook the dinner and look after the children of the people who are being forced to pay for them!

That way, when the taxpayers knock off work paying for the selfish greedy Petras of this world, instead of having to start work again shopping and cooking and cleaning, they could come home to a clean house and a cooked dinner. No need for a sole parents' pension, nor for taxation to that extent.

What would be unfair about that? All it requires is government to butt out of its discriminatory, unequal, self-contradictory interferences with people’s sexuality and freedom. You haven’t justified any more complex view.

Saltpetre
Never heard of a tribal society with a single parents’ pension, did you?

No.

A moment’s reflection would show why. It would immediately create two unequal classes: those who have the responsibility of make a living for themselves and looking after their own children, and finding a suitable partner, getting married and making their marriage work, at the same time supporting a minority and their children; with that minority feeling entitled to be supported by others for no reason, neither supporting themselves nor anyone else nor caring for anyone else’s children but their own.

It should be obvious that not everyone could be a member of the privileged class living at others’ expense. The arrangement is intrinsically unequal and discriminatory. And if it were not, and everyone had an equal right to do it and did it, it would immediately cause the total collapse of the economy and the society. It’s intrinsically selfish, greedy, and anti-social, not to mention childish.

And that would be to ignore its most significant flaw, which we can explore by asking this.

Why have you and the “whole of society” brigade defined society as meaning a group of people who comprise 22/7,000ths of the whole of actual human society?

(Australia’s population is 22 million, the world’s is 7 billion.) So your definition is grotesquely wrong, even if everyone in Australia agreed with you, which they obviously don’t.)

Why would anyone make such a gross factual and conceptual error, that is the question? (Don also made the same error.)

Why?

You don’t even know why you made that gross error, do you?

If you do know, please tell us why you did it.

Or kindly admit you don’t know why you did it, and I’ll explain why you’ve done it. In the process I’ll completely demolish your self-contradictory argument several times over.

jardine,

A while ago there was this meme going around where a woman would say to her husband, 'you're HEARING me but not LISTENING'. To translate this for us poor males who say what we mean, this meant, you're hearing me but I'm not getting my way'.

Leftists employ a similar use of language. As you picked up, 'complex' in Left-talk actually does have a very complex meaning (for us simple minded straight talking males). It means, 'I have no logical reason for my position; it is based on ideology and my feeling that I have done something good rather than actually doing something good'.

So then if you expand welfare and create a cycle of dependence (with all the social implications) then you can still feel good about yourself. You can 'feel' that you have helped the disadvantaged rather than being the big bad 'man' who takes decisions which people may not like but will be in everyone's long term best interests (that would be as opposed to the best interests of the child i.e. the interests of the mother).

Remote indigeneous communities are at the extreme end of this spectrum (the Left has done so much damage to aboriginals).

It is no coincidence that as the franchise was expanded from a narrow set of gentrified males to all males and SHORTLY after all females the political spectrum swung to the left. Much of that was fair and understandable. But it's also no surprise that women tend to vote Labor in slightly higher numbers than men. Labor, of course, is the party of re-distribution.

All you amateur anthropologists should surely realise that tribes are highly regulated groups often with very supressive rules and laws. Some of you obviously don't.

As a society, the 'Australian Tribe' of predominately Causasian people of Anglo or Euro descent was once bound by a set of common values which kept people in a relatively well ordered existance - for better or worse. Generally this worked for the greater good. People flouting these values usually suffered 'applied disapproval' from the compliant herd. For instance - it was expected that children would be born in wedlock and barring exceptional circumstances be raised by both parents. A Mothers role was nurturer, Fathers the provider. If you went against this value, social condemnation was severe - not only for the mother but also the child labeled a bastard. Children born thus were more often than not, adopted within the family circle (ie passed off as the child of the grandmother) or externally. All in all, the status quo was usually maintained.

This aspect of 'tribalism' has now been replaced by 'individualism', far greater freedom of choices and a relaxation of old rules of conduct. What some people don't seem to understand is that with increasing personal freedom comes increased personal RESPONSIBILITY.

OK - this will no doubt be labeled sexist but short of rape, it really is the final decision of the female whether or not to proceed with intercourse. This does not absolve the male, I merely maintain her responsibility in this matter is greater - especially in the context of a casual or uncommitted relationship. She, after all, is the one who will be left with a bellyful, birth and child in the event of conception. The male may chose to be involved - or not. After all the notion of 'facing the music' aka taking ownership of the consequences of one's behaviour is so outdated and it's no longer a societal expectation.

Continued ..

How has this, in part, come about? Because Governments, advised by Social Engineers decided to take on the responsibility of supporting children outside the two parent unit while the same people advocated self expression, free love, no fault divorce and generally a rejection of many of the values based on Judeo-Christian beliefs.

So without actually looking for statistics I'm sure no-one will bother to argue that the number of children: a)born out of wedlock b) born to mothers without a committed partner c) born into families where there is one or more half siblings d)living with a step-parent e)suffering either poverty, neglect, abuse, disadvantage or combination of some or all of these has increased dramatically in the past 40 years and continues to grow. And with this the number of societal problems.

Not only has Government policy supported this trend, it has developed it into a monster demanding constantly to be fed.

Yes - as a Society we MUST support the weak and vulnerable. Children don't ask to be born. On the other hand - the incentives for women to have babies without partners must be curtailed. The incentives for couples to stay together should be increased. Under 18s, CHILDREN, having babies should have care but not custody of the child nor recieve any money from the State. That should be managed by a parent or guardian. If the CHILD is unable or incapable, the infant should be adopted - in its best interests. Instead of congratulating the 19 year old and her BF of 2 months on her pregnancy they should be censured. In other words the pendulum needs to slip back towards that area where people are expected to act responsibly and face their responsibilities.

I absolutely guarantee there would be far fewer 'deadbeat' Dads AND Mums or kids getting into all sorts of strife. Welfare would be for the widows and widowers, the parents whose relationships broke down through no fault of their own or despite best efforts and while providing adequate support, would concentrate on helping families achieve independance. Wouldn't THAT be nice!!

Divine_msn, there is a lot in what you say. But governments act when we the electorate push them into it — unless there is an external crisis. I don't see much sign of the electorate doing more than moan about this issue, do you?

"Despots and democratic majorities are drunk with power. They must reluctantly admit that they are subject to the laws of nature. But they reject the very notion of economic law . . . economic history is a long record of government policies that failed because they were designed with a bold disregard for the laws of economics." Ludwig von Mises.

Don
Your comment is invalidated by the fallacy of conceptual realism that invalidates all your comments on this subject. "We" are not a decision-making entity. In fact, our system of government provides no evidence whatsoever that even a majority of the electorate favour any given act of government, let alone "society": http://economics.org.au/2010/08/unrepresentative-government/ The truth is the opposite of your assumption, which you have made because you have erroneously confounded society with the State, and the State with society.

divine,
An excellent post. It reflects the 'best interests of society' rather than the 'best interests of the child' which in reality means 'the best interests of the mother and bugger society, males and the kids'.

don,
The electorate would love to do more than moan about it. In fact many groups do. however, they are drowned out by mostly government funded single interest groups. Pressure groups served a useful purpose when they first came about in the 60s and 70s but since then they have morphed into a malicious blight on society. They are willing to lie and distort facts or the truth in order to fulfil their agenda at whatever cost to the rest of the community. I would say it is not 'democracy' that is the problem but rather democracy has been hijacked (and I would include some business groups here too.

Let's hope that the first thing Abbott does is de-fund all these sectional interests.

The last link I posted didn't work but I'm going to try again. This one relating to Policy and how it can change a child's life for the better ~ http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/grains-of-truth-good-policy-can-give-children-a-future-20130228-2f8y6.html

If it doesn't work, perhaps you might look it up for yourselves. 'Grains of truth: good policy can give children a future' by John Watson, senior writer, The Age. March 1.

"Globally, governments are making a difference in the lives of the young.

It ought to be a redundant observation, but it is a necessary one: the world's parents care as much about their children as we care about our own. What stops many parents from being able to give their children a reasonable chance in life is that ''we are failing at the basics'.

As important as parents' role is, it is equally important to care about the policies that frame what even the most loving parents are able to provide for their children."

Kate
That comment would only make sense if government got the money from a moonbeam. You need to take account of the fact that government got the money by taking it from people who, and withdrawing it from uses which were to that extent less able to provide care etc. for children. Not only do other people care as much about their children as we do about our own, but their is no validity to the mere assumption that government officials care more in their official capacity.

And you need to show that the results on a whole-of-society basis, however defined, were better considering the sacrifice of those other children's needs, PLUS the other important social values that were also sacrificed.

Go ahead. Failing that, you've just lost the argument.

Hey Jardine, how's this? You win! You are the winner of the argument! Woo Hoo, congratulations. Gosh that must make you feel good. Tell the world Jardine, you are the winningest winner in the whole wide world! Wow.

Now back to the issue at hand.... that involves real people, real lives, real children and real costs to our society.

Thank you for admitting that the single mother’s pension is worse for real children, real people and real lives.

No doubt those on the receiving end of the handout would be better off. But that's not the issue. The question – in your own terms - is whether society as a whole would be better off.

You can't just assume that it's beneficial, because the issue is whether it is, or not. You need to prove it, otherwise how are we to know that you're not making the situation worse, all things considered? You can’t just assume that the money was taken from satisfying less urgent or important social values.

The question is, how do we know that the care that children could *not* get, as a result of the resources withdrawn by government and given to bureaucrats to give to single mothers, didn’t result in the whole of society being worse off?

To justify it, you need to take into account the downsides of what you're advocating. But you're not doing that.

Plus you haven’t explained why these pensioners shouldn’t have to work for a living like everyone else.

All you're doing is *imagining* that we create net benefits for society by using unprovoked force on a double standard that you haven’t justified, and when this is pointed out, responding with personal argument.

So don’t bore us with your conceit that you care more about real children and real people. You don’t.

If you do, go ahead and show us how you've taken into account the downsides of the intervention, for the care of children in particular, and for social values in general.

If you can’t do it - and let’s face it you can’t - you should have honesty and decency to admit it with a good grace, not just to us, but to yourself as well

Dear Jardine,

<<Therefore you shouldn’t call on people who don’t consent to submit or live and die in exile from human society. Rather you should call for the abolition of government’s self-granted legal monopoly of pilfering the money supply.>>

I AM already doing so, although the topic of single-mothers is not exactly the best place for that.

As you just said.... "I'd like to see that!"

Meanwhile, I believe that statists should have freedom of choice just like anyone else. If they want to print money for themselves with draconian conditions attached, then they should be able to do so - so long as those who do not agree with those conditions can use their own currency.

Well, J K. J, you have fairly thrown down the gauntlet, but pray tell us just how far your 'every man for himself' philosophy would extend?

Surely you could not be content at merely discontinuing single parent pension, but surely would remove all family allowances, education allowances and carer pensions too? But, what about Newstart? And, Old Age Pension? Where to draw the line? All this government largesse at the expense of ordinary taxpayers - and without their specific explicit or implicit consent. Horrendous! And, what about all this overseas aid stuff? When did ordinary taxpayers give approval for that? And, what about these asylum seekers? We can't afford to keep them in detention indefinitely, so what to do? Send em back where they came from?

Just too easy, hey? Nobody's justified all this 'welfare' to the taxpayers, not obtained their consent, so it should all cease, and that way all the kids of fair-dinkum working families will be that much better off, won't they?

And, everybody can sleep better at night, eh?

You raise some interesting questions, in amongst your misrepresentations and misunderstandings.

Mine is not an ‘every many for himself’ philosophy. Mine is a ‘social relations should be based on non-violence and consent unless it’s necessary to repel aggression’ philosophy. This means your philosophy is less caring and less social than mine. You don’t care more about people or children than I do, otherwise you’d pay for single parents yourself, wouldn’t you? Still haven't answered why you don't.

Since you oppose my philosophy, and you don’t care about people any more than I do, that means the only point of difference is this. You stand for is the idea at it’s okay to use force or threats to get what you want, it’s okay for the stronger to take from the weaker, even if you’re actively making childrens and people’s lives worse, or you can’t prove it’s making society as a whole better, so long as you get the State to do your dirty work for you. It’s a doctrine of unlimited arbitrary state power on a double standard and, when faced with a complete and total disproof, you go silent and then re-enter the debate re-running this pretence that you care more about people than I do.

Yet we’ve just seen that you are completely unable to show how you know that you’re not making children’s and people’s lives worse, once we take into account the resources used for the intervention you advocate. So it’s illogical as well as anti-social and unethical.

So spare us your circular conceited non-reasoning, and please answer my earlier questions and then I’ll answer your later questions.

When you assumed “society” means a fraction of a group, that is itself 11/3500ths of actual human society, you obviously committed a grotesque factual, moral and intellectual blunder, which underlies, and invalidates your entire ideology. What, are the other 3489/3500ths of the world's population non-humans or sub-humans, are they?

My question is, do you know why you committed this gross error, not?

If so, why?

Yet another single mother with the entitlement mentality. Why is the father having to pay all the child support and why isn't he given the opportunity to raise his child. Why is it always only the mother who has that right and indeed all the rights, while fathers largely are left with all the financial responsibilities. I was a single father some time ago. When the ex had custody she got the parents pension, family tax benefits, thousands of dollars from me in child support, subsidised housing, subsidised gas and electricity and all the free legal aid she needed. Meanwhile i had to borrow thousands of dollars to fund my own case as well as pay an existing mortgage and pay child support. The result after 3 years when i finally gained custody was that my daughter (then 8/9 yo )was half feral, in ill health and underweight unable to do even basic tasks like shower herself or wash her hair and placed in a special class for slow children. When i did gain custody i did get the pension and tax benefits, but i also had a mortgage to pay as well as the loan for all the money borrowed to fund my case and i only recieved the princely sum of $5 p/w in child support. The difference is that i got back into work as soon as i could and my daughter now has a 1st class honours degree in psychology and is now doing her PHD.

Jardine,

Good luck with your 'non-violence and consent' philosophy of 'social relations', but it strikes me that you are being very violent towards single parents and their dependent children by your approach, and you haven't given any reason for your differentiation between single supporting parents and any other unemployed or partially employed individuals. Can it be that you consider parentage outside of marriage to be an illness of one's own making, or a form of 'malingering', and therefore not worthy of any consideration under our existing social welfare provisions?

You may not like or agree with our Oz social welfare support system, which is funded from the public purse (from taxation funds - a very large portion of which comes from business organisations large and small, don't forget), but what's your objection? Do you have some deep-seated conscientious objection to 'welfare' in general, or just some particular varieties?

How do you feel about War Veteran's disability benefits? Reckon they should have been more careful, perhaps? Or what about someone injured at work or in a car accident? These latter of course would qualify for special benefits under Workcover or other insurance, but what about when that runs out? Give em a knife and ask em to go off quietly and slit their wrists?

Think I'm being stupid with these examples? Maybe, but you still haven't explained your singling-out of 'single parent welfare' for special treatment - that treatment being no treatment. Give one reason, just one. Is single parentage a 'sin' maybe? Self-inflicted injury? Should all kids only be raised by a mum and a dad - so all singles should automatically have their kids adopted out or put in foster care?

As for charity - considerable assistance is provided to single parents (mostly to mums, but also some to dads) by way of shelter and support by some church and non-government organisations. But it would seem you would place the entire burden on their shoulders. Again, why single out this one group, single parents? This is the one, the only question.

Dear Saltpetre,

I absolutely agree with Jardine that ‘social relations should be based on non-violence and consent unless it’s necessary to repel aggression’.

However, I believe that Jardine has misplaced the violence-claim: violence does not occur when one's tax-money goes to single-mothers or for any other purpose, just or wrong, wise or foolish, nor even when tax is levied. Violence occur when the state tells you: "you must not use any other currency than mine. If you do, we'll throw you in jail, then if you resist arrest for having your own currency, we will shoot you". If that were not the case and one still used the money which governments print, then they must not complain that some of it is given to single mothers: don't like it - then don't touch that money!

Yes, being part of society, or of a particular society, must be subject to consent. That has nothing to do with single mothers or even with welfare-payments in general. It is wrong and violent for society to impose itself on all the people who simply happen to live in a specific vast region (in the case of Australia, a whole continent) without them all agreeing.

If one freely chooses to be part of society, then they should accept the preferences of that society (be they democratic or otherwise), and perhaps try to make changes from within the system. If not, then so long as participation in society is not mandatory, then one should not complain about the choices of those who did want to participate.

Saltpetre
The article is about single mothers, and it's enough for me to point out that the author's views, and yours, are factually, logically, economically and morally false.

They're factually false because it's not okay to say the pension is justified by "society", and then define society to be a tiny tiny tiny fraction of actual society.

It's logically false because in doing so you contradict yourself.

It's economically false because it means children's lives are worse off as a result of the single parents' pension on a whole-of-society basis.

It's morally false because the money is raised by force and threats. There is no force or threats whatsoever in my denying the morality of raising funds in that way.

You are in favour of interventions that, even in your own terms, actively make things worse for children on a whole of society basis. Your trying to squirm out of it by evasions and repeating your presuppositions only advances my argument, not yours.

I'll happily answer your later questions after you've made an honest attempt to answer my earlier question, do you know why you made the gross error of defining society as 11/3500ths of actual human society, or not?

Obviously if you're that grossly confused, there's no point my answering questions which proceed further on the same confusion; all it means is that you're wrong.

eyeinthesky,

You did what many responsible parents do all the time: you put the interests of your child ahead of your own. You worked to support her so she could have a better life. And your efforts have been repayed - she's now getting a PhD.

Unfortunately, so many people are like the author now. Instead of saying I had the child, I am responsible for the circumstances I now find myself in, they expect society (i.e. everyone else) to pay their way.