For fourteen years, judge Steven Wakefield has paid such high child support for a son who spends half his time with him that the mother has never been on welfare, nor ever worked. She spends much of her time high on pot while Steven and his current wife and two children live in near poverty. He’s lucky. Many who do the same are not allowed to see their children by the same mother they support. Richard Green’s wife left him and their two pre-school sons to marry a richer man. The legal arrangement is called “joint custody,” but he pays full child support although she rarely sees the kids. In fact, when his consulting business started doing well five years later, she sued for more child support. John Hushion’s ex-wife jiggled her breasts at him outside the court. “How do you like what your child support bought?” She now had breast implants. We all know there are deadbeat dads: men who do not contribute what they could of their share of the costs of their children. How many there are is subject to considerable debate. Studies by the Urban Institute of Washington D.C. suggests that, if a third of all single mothers live in poverty, the fathers are probably not much better off, with far less public assistance available to them. So how many non-paying fathers are actually capable of paying is left to speculation. Still, there are deadbeat dads. How many deadbeat moms are there? By deadbeat moms, I don’t mean the non-custodial mothers who, as we’ve known for decades, default on child support at twice the rate of fathers, even though asked to pay half as much. I don’t even mean the whatever number of welfare moms that are generated by that system itself, as, to some extent or other, it does encourage less capable girls to get pregnant, not simply to prove their adulthood or escape their family, but assure themselves a basic existence rather than face earning one for themselves. (An option not available to men.) No. When I say deadbeat moms, I mean women who use children for personal profit. I mean women who collect faithfully paid child support, but make no contribution to the cost of their children themselves when they could, even make little or no contribution to the cost of themselves. I mean women who keep all the care-giving to themselves only to justify getting all the money. I’m talking about women who collect child support and then contribute nothing. Even spend money meant for children on themselves. After all, if a deadbeat dad is a man who does not contribute what he can of his share of the cost of his children, what would you call a women who does the same? You would think there would be a great may women trying to root such women out. You’d think you’d see a fervent social campaign, led by women, to find and eliminate this practice. Such women are a threat to all women. They violate the sacred trust that has always balanced the sexes. They violate the sacred trust of motherhood itself. Who could ever trust a woman if that sort of thing got around? So you’d think women would launch a furious campaign to root it out. You’d especially expect this of feminists, though for a different reason. How could any feminist allow women to exploit their gender-position and the other gender? Before they could cry against it in men, they’d want it eliminated it from their own. Considering the number of deadbeat moms, it’s surprising how little effort, money, and attention is spent on their prevention and cure. Only dads. It’s enough to make you think this society is sexist. ©2007 KC Wilson To nourish children and raise them against odds is in any time, any place, more valuable than to fix bolts in cars or design nuclear weapons. - Marilyn French
|
