Alan C. Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 New Report: 48% of First Children Born to Unwed Mothers ...and by age 30 two-thirds of American women have had a child, typically out of wedlock. . . . The report cites two reasons – middle class American men having difficulty finding stable employment that allows them to support a family and “a less understood” reason about the disconnect between marriage and childbearing. . . . “Researchers now view family instability as one of the greatest risks to children’s well being,” the report states. “Yet unmarried adults, including single 20-somethings who make up about half of unmarried parents, are by definition unsettled. Further, the report states: “Most researchers agree that on average, whether because of instability or absent fathers or both, children of unmarried mothers have poorer outcomes than children growing up with their married parents.” . . . The solution? More government programs “to help 20-something men and women figure out new ways to put the baby carriage after marriage.”
RestoringGuy Posted March 22, 2013 Posted March 22, 2013 I always find it strange that the mothers are characterized as "unmarried" while fathers are characterized as "absent" (or "deadbeat"). He failed to propose marriage and he left her, that's the only way it happens in their view.
Rick Horton Posted March 23, 2013 Posted March 23, 2013 Well my question is what can an Anarchist do to force people to stop this behavior? Observing the problem is one thing, but you can only try and prevent it in your own situation. Outside of that an anarchist has absolutely no affect on the trend.
RestoringGuy Posted March 23, 2013 Posted March 23, 2013 Well my question is what can an Anarchist do to force people to stop this behavior? Observing the problem is one thing, but you can only try and prevent it in your own situation. Outside of that an anarchist has absolutely no affect on the trend. The anarchist should recognize that the state currently provides immediate custody to unmarried mothers and not unmarried fathers. When the child is abducted by mother, it is usually not called abduction because of the blessing of the state. An action is to ignore state reports of child abduction whenever they don't tell you who is suspected and what is their real genetic relationship with the child (not the court's opinion of where a child should be). I tend to characterize single (birth) mothers as true child abductors, unless they are widowed or truly been abandoned. My mother used me as a tool to entrap a series of men for support; Men who I've never seen. You can't "force" people to stop this behavior, but you can influence it.
Rick Horton Posted March 23, 2013 Posted March 23, 2013 Well my question is what can an Anarchist do to force people to stop this behavior? Observing the problem is one thing, but you can only try and prevent it in your own situation. Outside of that an anarchist has absolutely no affect on the trend. You can't "force" people to stop this behavior, but you can influence it. How does an anarchist's influence change the majority of people's opinions on the matter? It's really not just an anarchist issue. It's an issue of justice. An anarchist totally lacks the ability to bring justice to situations outside of his family, and many times within his own family if he gets a girl pregnant and she doesn't want you in her or your child's life. An anarchist must turn to law and the legal force that the State provides to even remotely have a chance in this situation. If he takes any other route and she is not aggreable or compliant, an anarchist is TOTALLY ineffective. This is how it is across the spectrum of law, disputes, rights, etc.... An anarchist is ineffective outside of "himself" if a dispute arises that cannot be resolved through aggreement. So it does no good for anybody, or anybody else for a person to try and be an anarchist. It immobilizes him into a position where he can preach from a mountain top, but be ignored, mistreated, and abused. And there's no fix outside of legal action, which would be ironic for an anarchist to utilize.
RestoringGuy Posted March 23, 2013 Posted March 23, 2013 How does an anarchist's influence change the majority of people's opinions on the matter? It's really not just an anarchist issue. It's an issue of justice. An anarchist totally lacks the ability to bring justice to situations outside of his family, and many times within his own family if he gets a girl pregnant and she doesn't want you in her or your child's life. An anarchist must turn to law and the legal force that the State provides to even remotely have a chance in this situation. If he takes any other route and she is not aggreable or compliant, an anarchist is TOTALLY ineffective. This is how it is across the spectrum of law, disputes, rights, etc.... An anarchist is ineffective outside of "himself" if a dispute arises that cannot be resolved through aggreement. So it does no good for anybody, or anybody else for a person to try and be an anarchist. It immobilizes him into a position where he can preach from a mountain top, but be ignored, mistreated, and abused. And there's no fix outside of legal action, which would be ironic for an anarchist to utilize. Anarchism does not mandate staying away from law and legal force. It may be just a last resort like self defense. Yes I admit that it seems hypocritical that an anarchist would ask the cops or fireman for help. But it's not when you consider they would only prefer to spend their money on a superior system, not pay for the current system and foolishly boycott it. If while under attack you suddenly needed a mafia guy to protect you, it is unwise to say "no, thanks I'll just sit here and die instead of being saved by evil mafia-guy". That admission does not make one a mafia-supporter. You would not say a mafia-opponent is "immobilized" in the same situation. I think you have a point though, and maybe some anarchist take this last-resort idea in an unclear way. Besides I don't accept that legal action is the only way. Social disapproval includes refusing to do business with somebody. The fact that single mothers can abduct their child and get material help tells me somebody is aiding their crime even when they are not required to do so. I was abducted solely for the money I could generate for her. I will be angry with everyone who I learn made it possible, and if I learn of a person who aided a similar crime, I won't do business with these predators.
MrCapitalism Posted March 23, 2013 Posted March 23, 2013 And there's no fix outside of legal action, which would be ironic for an anarchist to utilize. ...what about choosing a better partner?
Rick Horton Posted March 23, 2013 Posted March 23, 2013 And there's no fix outside of legal action, which would be ironic for an anarchist to utilize. ...what about choosing a better partner? That's fine. But your partner can change her mind. Then you're screwed. Sorry. Again you'd lose.
Lowe D Posted March 24, 2013 Posted March 24, 2013 Why would you want to force anyone to do anything? Having a child out of wedlock isn't good for the child, but it isn't the end of the world.
RestoringGuy Posted March 24, 2013 Posted March 24, 2013 Why would you want to force anyone to do anything? Having a child out of wedlock isn't good for the child, but it isn't the end of the world. Force is the only thing at work here. If the newborn is left alone for like 12 seconds, it is only force (either personal or institutional) that entitles her to recover the child from a closer stranger. The exclusion of fathers from this assumption of automatic genetic custody is something both statists and anarchists seem to ignore.
Rick Horton Posted March 24, 2013 Posted March 24, 2013 Why would you want to force anyone to do anything? Having a child out of wedlock isn't good for the child, but it isn't the end of the world. Force is the only thing at work here. If the newborn is left alone for like 12 seconds, it is only force (either personal or institutional) that entitles her to recover the child from a closer stranger. The exclusion of fathers from this assumption of automatic genetic custody is something both statists and anarchists seem to ignore. There's no entitlements outside of a State.
RestoringGuy Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 There's no entitlements outside of a State. Seems like an odd comment. A guy with a gun to my head has similar entitlement to my money as the state, correct? If we are to use the scientific method (or any honest and objective method), it would seem that two situations with the same established outcomes (eg. force vs. rights), we expect a measurement of morality to be also the same. It would be bad for example if two rocks I said "weighed the same", but you witness that every scale on Earth consistently says the two rocks are weighing different amounts.
Recommended Posts