Stop having kids ... just fucking stop

[OhMissScarlett]

Lucky thanks for that post. And Zack, I apologize for saying that I thought you were insensitive and shut off to reality. I didn't know your background, so I'm sure you can understand how your post looked to me.

I too have seen abuse of the welfare system during my time as an inner city pharmacy technician. Oh yeah, I've seen welfare recipients complain about having to pay 50 cents for a $200 perscription when I was working and would have to pay full price for the same thing.

But I saw a lot of good too. I met a lot of good, hard working, tolerant, poor people who had good values and were caring parents of clean and well- mannered children. So, it's just not right to make such broad generalizations about single mothers.

I'm not going to go into a political rant about how Planned Parenthood doesn't get enough funding to provide birth control to every woman or man who needs it. But it would be a double standard to complain about the amount we tax payers are paying to support newborn babies and children without complaining that there's no money for birth control as well.

 

[oggbashan]

Thanks Lucky

Your quotes put Seattle Zack's views into perspective.

He is trying to do something to break the cycle and it seems unbreakable. At least he is trying and frustrated by the situation.

What he is saying is not new. If you search you can find similar complaints in the Bible and in Roman and Greek authors that say - The 'hoi polloi', the 'plebs', breed too much without considering the consequences. It is a severe problem in India and many other countries. The economic cost of rearing children is high and only those who have significant incomes seem to consider that reducing the number of children is a viable option. Those are not my views - I'm quoting.

How do you change that? The Chinese tried the one child policy. That has brought other social problems. India has tried and is still trying sterilisation. Cultural norms dictate many children in some societies because the children will support the parents and grandparents - or will they.

In the UK there is some economic advantage to having children without a father supporting them - if you have nothing. The government is considering ways of changing that. It is difficult without penalising the current generation.

Dealing with the consequences is not easy. How do you persuade a woman whose only experience of 'love' is a brutal fucking every now and then that there is more to life? Everything she watches on TV and reads suggest that love is essential and will bring happiness. That sort of love she may never know yet advertisers plug away at her subconscious that their product will produce the 'happy-ever-after' sensation that earned love will bring.

Even in the 21st century magazines aimed at girls and young women are sold on the premise that she can find true love if only she does x or y. I'm not surprised that vulnerable young women fall for the illusion and end up pregnant - again.

Og

 

[Guest]

Yes, thanks, Lucky.

I don't know Zack that well, but what I have read of his posts in the past did lead me to believe him a very fair and caring individual. That's why I said we should all stop and think about what his motivations might be.

Lou

 

[scheherazade_79]

I think "breeder cow" is a little strong, but I did read an article in the newspaper the other day that had my blood pressure soaring. It was about a woman who had 12 kids from various men. Actually, she wasn't sure who half the fathers were.

Of course, there was no way she could work, so her bills were footed by the tax-payer. She received around £30,000 a year in benefits, had a massive house and several flat screen TVs. She took her story to the newspaper to complain that the she'd never been on a holiday with all her children, because the government refused to pay for it.

Rights and wrongs aside, I think someone really did need to tell her that holding your breath during sex isn't the best contraceptive. Or maybe she just liked being pregnant? Who knows. I studied five years at university and I don't earn that amount. Maybe I should have taken a different path?

 

[oggbashan]

The newspapers love those sort of stories.

They rarely print the ones about the elderly parents with a mentally disturbed son who are no longer able to control him and get no help except an 'advice pack' posted through their door.

Og

 

[sweetnpetite]

The second a real person was involved, they changed their tune.

The point is we're all real people. We all have real pains, joys, fears and hopes. Some might fit a stereotype, but damn few.

 

[sweetnpetite]

In the Great Book of Life where does it say that only rich people are successful? Now, would I need to look under the Hilton listing…or the Vanderbilts…or who? Where are the shining rich people examples of what human beings should be, eh?

As a potential breeder cow, I do think I have taken offense.

Perhaps you could look at it this way; do you get a tax refund? If not, would you accept one if you qualified for it? Even if you didn't "need" it just to pay your house payment? If the answer is yes to any of the questions, then fundamentally, it is no different than people who qualify for (and accept) food stamps and medical assistance. I think it's called entitlement by the federal government. The difference would be in that a great many of them actually do need the help.

You might read "Nickel and Dimed – On (Not) Getting By in America" by Barbara Ehrenreich.

Yui <-- College educated, not rich ergo not successful, future breeder of multi-lingual little babies with epicanthic folds.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Don't mean to rant, but what the fuck is wrong with us? We jump down every slightest malign to ourselves and our particular groups without stopping to think if our groups were even maligned. Tates and I were the only ones giving Seattle even the slightest of a doubt until the Luckster's post and now we're all pretending like we've learned something valuable about knowing people's backgrounds? What kind of pathetic hypocrites are we?

Bloody <grumble grumble>. We learned nothing except maybe what we should already know and that doesn't make us better people. It makes us reactionary idiots.

I don't agree much with his viewpoints or his distributions of blame, but at least I took the time to give him the benefit of the doubt and demonstrate my side of the equation. Some others did the same. Some others went a bit farther in a good and sensible way. You know who you are and are exempt from this rant.

The rest of us should learn to cull ourselves until at least the point that the person says something amicusian.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Don't mean to rant, but what the fuck is wrong with us? We jump down every slightest malign to ourselves and our particular groups without stopping to think if our groups were even maligned. Tates and I were the only ones giving Seattle even the slightest of a doubt until the Luckster's post and now we're all pretending like we've learned something valuable about knowing people's backgrounds? What kind of pathetic hypocrites are we?

To be fair, others here have been willing to give Zack the benefit of the doubt, but they are just as entitled to pop-off on a 'backgroundless' rant as he is.

He's an infrequent poster here and completely capable of backing up what he had to say earlier, if he chooses to. I've only ever seen him on in the evenings, so I presume he'll be around later with more to say. Maybe not, but no one here should really be expected to know his motivations or assume that he wasn't attacking them, if they fell under his sweeping generalizations.

I only posted what I did because I remembered him being an advocate for underpriveledged children. That always counts with me and while I wish he had included some of his more positive feelings about the 'system', he didn't. I just thought I'd fill in the blanks until he got here. I'm still a little irritated with him for being so callous, but he's plenty entitled to that as others are to feel attacked at being called a *gag* breeder cow.

~lucky

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

To be fair, others here have been willing to give Zack the benefit of the doubt, but they are just as entitled to pop-off on a 'backgroundless' rant as he is.

He's an infrequent poster here and completely capable of backing up what he had to say earlier, if he chooses to. I've only ever seen him on in the evenings, so I presume he'll be around later with more to say. Maybe not, but no one here should really be expected to know his motivations or assume that he wasn't attacking them, if they fell under his sweeping generalizations.

I only posted what I did because I remembered him being an advocate for underpriveledged children. That always counts with me and while I wish he had included some of his more positive feelings about the 'system', he didn't. I just thought I'd fill in the blanks until he got here. I'm still a little irritated with him for being so callous, but he's plenty entitled to that as others are to feel attacked at being called a *gag* breeder cow.

~lucky

I understand THAT and by all means everyone is entitled to rant as much as they like. Lord knows I go off on the handle.

What really was getting to me was how the thread's atmosphere felt like some big fucking sitcom where everyone goes overboard and then comes together after the big revelation to discuss what they've "learned" from the experience. That kind of bullshit is just...annoying.

I don't know. I think it's just because I haven't slept for awhile. Maybe I should do that soon.

 

[Guest]

What really gets to me is this kind of thing: welcome to my ignore list, you asshole!

Who gives a fuck???

Oh, I would be so heartbroken to end up on someone's ignore list. It would devastate me. Yeah, right! I couldn't give a shit, and I doubt many others could, either.

I find that such a pompous and arrogant thing to say, especially when based upon a knee-jerk reaction.

Yes, I can be a hypocrite, I think we all can at times. Our views get clouded and we are always biased when loved ones and those we care about are involved. But, most of us are strangers here. We might think we know everyone else pretty well, but we don't, not really. Snap judgements, and then the, "Oh, I learnt such a valuable lesson there," really do smack of hypocrisy, as Luc said.

I truly can understand why some people here did react like they did (Sweet, I wasn't including you in what I said above - is that hypocritical of me? I dunno, I don't much care).

Oh, bollocks to all of it. Life's too bloody short to get wound up by mere words.

I sat here earlier and wrote out a very long post, related to the very topic of the thread. I decided against it, because it was just too damn upsetting at the time. But, I feel differently now, so I'll post a shorter version of it.

It's about a very tragic incident, which I was directly involved in, in which three beautiful children lost their lives in a house fire. It was devastating for all involved, especially the mother, who survived, along with just one of her kids. She was a lone parent, and through neglect, she left her kids (all under the age of eight) alone one morning. The seven year old boy got hold of a lighter she'd left in her bedroom and set fire to the house, killing himself, his eight year sister and his 18 month old sister. The three year old boy got out. My eldest daughter went to school with the seven year old boy. My youngest went to nursery with the three year old boy.

I knew this family well, for years, and had always thought her to be such a wonderful, caring and loving mother. I don't doubt she was, most of the time, but a lot of facts came out at the inquest. Where was she while her kids were screaming for her? Round her friend's house, on the phone to her boyfriend. The father? You ask. A quiet unassuming man, who picked his kids up every Sunday morning to take them to church. She denied him access the rest of the time. She never worked a day in her life and often left her kids home alone, while she went out and had fun. She was prosecuted, and the Dad was awarded custody of the little boy.

Me passionate about this issue? You bet!

Lou

 

[sweetnpetite]

There are cases of people who virtually stay pregnant, to increase what they make, it does happen.

-Colly

Although I put CZ on my ignore list, I was interested in what others had to say. Thank you colly for a well thought out and ballanced post.

I would like to point out however that while certainly there are some who have more kids to get more money, the average welfare family has the same number of kids as the average non-welfare family. Also, when you see a woman on welfare who has many kids, it isn't always correct to assume her motivation or reasons.

Also, someone (it might have been you I don't remember) talked about a mother who takes her dirty kids in often for icecream. Again, we shouldn't assume what we don't know. She is spending time with her children, she is trying to make them happy and give them a small pleasure. Maybe they are dirty because they all came from the park were they played in the sandbox. Us poor mothers don't have the extra cash to take our kids to santitary play areas like Gymbory- nor do most kids prefer it. She may well bath her kids every day and wash there clothes with generic laundry detergent (which doesn't work well- but when I used it I just assumed that kids ground in dirt wasn't gonna come out. Later I started using Cheer and couldn't believe the difference. But I digress.) Could even be that the kids grandparents give her the money to take the kids for icecream. I know that when I was a kid, my grandparents did this every time they saw us. They also gave us canned goods and helped us in other ways whenever they could. You just don't know what you don't know.

What would be worse, a two parent household that can buy there kids every *thing* but rarely spend time with them or a welfare mom who takes her kids out to play, let's them get dirty and mades a point to build some happy memories?

Many people post that they were on welfare or were single mothers who worked hard and avoided the welfare trap, but somehow they did this or that so probably the rant is not against them. Well, I will stand and claim right now that this rant is against me.

I was pregnant at 17 and again at 19. I loved the father of my children, but didn't marry him. I had my reasons and I can assure you that had I married him it wouldn't have changed a thing. And it wouldn't have been good for me or my kids at that time. We were together and on welfare and when we broke up I was on welfare. Married couples can and do qualify/use/need welfare. Getting married does not (despite what one would guess from the pundints) garantee you a higher standard of living.

I won't go into details of how or why . I did what I could and what I needed to at that time in my life and the best that I could. I made the decisions that were my perogative as head of household to make. I, far better than Seatle Jack or the Welfare Casemanager knew what my family needed and what we could handle.

At one point, a social worker who knew my family well through working closley with us (and actually giving a shit- which was certainly rare in my experience to this point, and believe me I had worked with a lot of 'system' people not just one or two) determined that I needed to get out of the house, and so I recieved money to pay a babysitter twice a week as well as money to spend on myself. Guess what- I went to the bar. That's right, I went with my friends and bought liqour with someones tax money. We danced, we ate, we drank too much. And I'm glad I did. I diserved and needed a break as much as any other mom. I needed a social life as well as a stress valve.

The rest of the week, I was with my kids 24/7 feeding with them, playing with them, getting up w/ them when they were sick at night, taking them to doctor appointments, taking them grocery shopping you name it. I never even had a hang-over despite the fact that I drank plenty enough to get one. The reason why- I didn't have time for a hangover. I got up and made bottles and breakfast and changed diapers and got on with my day.

I was not a saint, or a perfect mom- one who could escape from Zack's (or many other's) scorn. I made mistakes, bad jugedments, wrong decisions. Who hasn't? When you go on welfare you go under the microscoope. Every mistake you make prooves you are not fit. But every peson and every parent makes mistakes.

From what I know, Zack works with problem kids who's mothers are on welfare, and that is where his observations come from. Maybe he had to deal with a young child the day he made that post who's home life had severly messed this kid up and made Zack react strongly as such. He deals with it every day, and i'm sure it's extemely stressful.

But if he worked in a different area, (say a phychologist in Hollywood) maybe he would see malajusted rich kids who's parents had fucked them up with there bad decisions. Maybe he would see the results of parents who gave there kids everything but love and time and who are out of controll because they have no limits and no one who gives a fuck. Maybe then he would rant against rich parents having kids to satisfy there ego's or two 'parent' households who don't actually have anyone doing any parenting. Who knows.

All families have challenges. Poverty, work, demands on out time. Being poor, being single- these things don't make bad parents or bad mothers. These things, and others present challenges to being the best family that we can be with what we have. *Breeding* is a biological urge that we all have, that's why we crave sex. It doesn't go away because your life isn't perfect and your bank acount isn't fat or even because the world population is out of control. Our bodies are built to reproduce, to carry on our genetic material before we die, and they do what they can to make this happen. Indeed, it takes special effort and usually *money* to avoid procreating.

Poor mothers and rich mothers and middle class mothers. We all have challenges and we all make mistakes. For the most part, there is no difference. There are good and bad and fucked up parents in every socio-economic level. There are good and bad and fucked up kids on every socioeconomic level.

For those who believe that poor mothers should be flawless or near perfect or reach a certain standard set by outsiders without an understanding of the situation before they diserve help, I would recomend that you read a story posted here by oggbasham called Briget.

Hell, read it anyway- it's a good story.

here is a link

 

[sweetnpetite]

Why has no one mentioned that the men should have responsibility as well?

A few of the people I know that could be covered by this rant have been used and abused by men. That's how they get pregnant. Then he (or they) do a runner leaving her with the child. When she has recovered her figure he (they) are back again for free no-strings-attached sex. That is all they want and all she can offer.

It is abuse, often of women who have low self-esteem already, that pushes them further down into depression and despair. Breaking the cycle needs strength that the woman rarely has and any resistance can be beaten out of her.

The women are not the source of the problem but they bear the consequences.

Og

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: Stop having kids ... just fucking stop

While I do agree that people who cannot care for the children they have don't need to have droves of children, I wonder what sort of a bubble you live in that makes you such an insensitive individual.

I know many single mothers just like myself who do not receive a dime of child support or state aid. If you only knew the incredible toll that childbirth and motherhood takes on a woman's body and mind, you might not be in such a hurry to insinuate that we're all clammoring to get knocked up to trap a man and defraud the government.

Like many women, I got pregnant on the pill; birth control pills which I was paying out of pocket $35.00 a month for, as I had no health insurance. At the time I was holding down two jobs just to make my rent and car payment. Though I never considered abortion as a personal choice, I couldn't have afforded to get one if I had. Do you have $500 in cash laying around? I didn't.

I had to rely on state medical care for my pregnancy because I was uninsured. But I paid taxes my whole adult life. This is why we pay into the welfare program, people. You hope to never need it. You pray it's never you. But you thank God it's there if you have to resort to it. Public Aid tried to make me take lots of other assistance, but I refused, thinking I might be taking it away from a disabled person who was unable to work.

Luckily my son's father had a good job and was able to help me. He paid a great majority of the medical cost which were not covered by public aid. But, I shudder to think how it might have been if I'd had some loser as a sperm donor, which many many women have.

All parents make sacrifices for their children, Zack, as I'm sure yours did for you. I don't know anyone who's just sitting around on welfare. But I sure know a lot of people who are working their asses off with no help from anyone at all.

I just want to add:

Most of the tax dollars that go to welfare don't go to the people on welfare either. They go to administration- wellfare workers, paper, envelopes, ect. Most of your tax money that's taken for welfare actually goes to poeople with jobs for there salary and their benefits. So no matter how we cut the rolls, it's not going to make a significant difference in your taxed income. Welfare is a scapegoat for polliticians to blame as the reason they take all your money out and spend it on a zillion other things.

Just a thought.

 

[lewdandlicentious]

I have to add my tuppence worth here.

I feel that most if not all of you have grossly mis-understood what Zack was getting at.

You've all jumped down his throat, quoting various criterea that you do or don't fall into without fully understanding his point, which was, I believe, a rant at those who live solely on state handouts, without working many if ever a day in their lives, with or without spouses, who probably never work(ed) either, and producing more children that they cannot afford, that the state pays for.

Thereby producing babies as a means to live their useless lazy lives at OUR (Yours in the US) expense.

He wasn't on about women who were left alone through relationship breakup, who did their best however they could.

He was talking about people who DELIBERATELY live for free, milking the system. A system that was designed to protect those not at fault.

If I'm right, then I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with him.

And for those of you that have stated the case for putting him on ignore, you make it sound like some sort of punishment.

Haha, Like he even gives a fuck!

The Rude One!

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I never mentioned dirty kids SnP, I never judged being clean as the mark of good parenting. My brother's and I were more often dirty from playing, having fun and just being kids.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Don't mean to rant, but what the fuck is wrong with us? We jump down every slightest malign to ourselves and our particular groups without stopping to think if our groups were even maligned. Tates and I were the only ones giving Seattle even the slightest of a doubt until the Luckster's post and now we're all pretending like we've learned something valuable about knowing people's backgrounds? What kind of pathetic hypocrites are we?

No hypocrisy here. Thought he was a jerk, still think he's a jerk. For his opinions? Nope. For the pointless name-calling and invective? Yup. No one who really wants to solve a problem starts with that sort of language, and no one who engages in has a right to expect the reader to offer respect or understanding. When you begin by using hateful, vicious language, you create a hateful, vicious persona for yourself. No reason to complain to the reader for taking you at your words.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

No hypocrisy here. Thought he was a jerk, still think he's a jerk. For his opinions? Nope. For the pointless name-calling and invective? Yup. No one who really wants to solve a problem starts with that sort of language, and no one who engages in has a right to expect the reader to offer respect or understanding. When you begin by using hateful, vicious language, you create a hateful, vicious persona for yourself. No reason to complain to the reader for taking you at your words.

That whole thing was aimed more at the whole sitcom atmosphere the thread was taking than anything else.

 

[BlackShanglan]

That whole thing was aimed more at the whole sitcom atmosphere the thread was taking than anything else.

Heh. That I can agree with. I expected to hear Stan or Kyle say "You know, I've learned something today ... "

 

[Evil Alpaca]

Heh. That I can agree with. I expected to hear Stan or Kyle say "You know, I've learned something today ... "

You can't learn anything until you've killed Kenny . . . which would be "decreasing the surplus population" . . . which would decrease the demand on welfare! By jove, a solution!

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Heh. That I can agree with. I expected to hear Stan or Kyle say "You know, I've learned something today ... "

LOL, yeah, kinda like that.

 

[Guest]

No hypocrisy here. Thought he was a jerk, still think he's a jerk. For his opinions? Nope. For the pointless name-calling and invective? Yup. No one who really wants to solve a problem starts with that sort of language, and no one who engages in has a right to expect the reader to offer respect or understanding. When you begin by using hateful, vicious language, you create a hateful, vicious persona for yourself. No reason to complain to the reader for taking you at your words.

Agreed.

I am not taking issue with what he said. In fact to an extent, I agree with it. What I take issue with is the blatant generalization and name calling. It was totally uncalled for. And there is WAY too much of that here lately.

And THAT is the reason my ignore list grows on a daily basis. I come here primarily for enjoyment. I don't enjoy getting angry over someones ignorant rantings.

 

[BlackShanglan]

You can't learn anything until you've killed Kenny . . . which would be "decreasing the surplus population" . . . which would decrease the demand on welfare! By jove, a solution!

*laugh* I was just explaining Social Darwinism, eugenics, and "surplus" population to someone today. I swear. It's amazing how no one ever counts him or her self in the "surplus" group.

 

[ChilledVodkaIV]

At 14 jenny was the brightest kid in her class, she also happened to be the prettiest and most well developed. She was a racing cert to go to Oxbridge with A*'s lighting her path all the way.

Most of jenny's friends lived in the Pit Houses at the north end of town and would have to leave school soon after their exams in order to take money home for their families. When the family allowance stops the cash has to come from somewhere. All bar one of jenny's friend's parents were ex-mining folk living on pensions and allowances and with the mother working at various McJobs, severally or in series.

jenny's nanny, in fact, was one of her best friend's mum and save for the fact of jenny's younger brother Simon she would be 'let go'.

jenny loved her pony, which she called "Trotty" because that was it's favourite method of perambulation and often invited several of her friends to the stables to ride any of the other ponies, any except Trotty. Trotty was jenny's love.

On the occasions that jenny was alone at home, in her very own, grown up wing of the house where her very own, grown up bedroom was located, she loved to spend her non-study time in the mindless world of Tekken, Doom3, Dead or Alive or trolling through some on-line dungeon chasing on-line dragons.

jenny's love of theatre was no less than her passion for her very favourite soccer team and her very favourite dance troup The Ballet Rambert. She often invited her many school friends to attend performances with her, although they seemed to prefer boy-bands or the pictures.

jenny loved everything about her life and was honest to goodness grateful for everything that she had.

June, jenny's best friend, introduced her to Dave. Dave soon came to love jenny and introduced her to sex (but not before she was of legal age, her parents, though broad minded, were nothing if not practical and had insisted that jenny be fully conversant with contraception before she was allowed to 'go out' with anyone.)

Having passed every exam with an A* jenny decided to celebrate by giving Dave, the gift of her virginity (most of jenny's friends had already regailed her with their own loss of innocence, in lurid and mouth watering detail)

Jenny discovered a new and greater passion. Sex.

She loved it. She had sex with Dave at every opportunity. And jenny found that Dave loved having sex with her.

At 17 jenny had her first baby and her first heart-ache. Dave was killed in an RTA, she never found out until she came from the delivery room and despite her disappointment at Dave's mysterious disappearance she soon bonded with her first born and cleaved unto her with that love only a mother can know.

When jenny was 19, studying law and economics at Baliol College she fell pregnant once more. jenny cleaved unto her second born with only that love that a mother can know.

Gaining a first and another child jenny was in heaven and once her son had joined her two other children to live in the family home decided to go for her masters.

A professorship at MIT deprived jenny of her husband for the length of time it took her to gain her Masters and a decree absolute.

By the time jenny took her bar finals, breast feeding her newborn son throughout the exam, jenny was complete, cleavig unto her son with a love that only a mother can know.

Twins were a not wholly unexpected addition to her growing brood, her husband was a twin as was her father-in-law, when jenny entered the world of politics at 29. Politics, however hot and torid, didn't prevent jenny from cleaving to her twin sons with that love that only a mother can know.

As a rising star in cabinet at the age of 32 and tipped for 'big things', jenny died shortly after an emergency Ceasarian section but not before she could cleave to her last born with that love that only a mother can know.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Just so everyone knows- I didn't come back 'appoligetic' or having learned any particular lesson- just calmer.

As to the benefit of the doubt- I have given SZ the benefit of the doubt before. While I know *why* he said what he said, I also know that it is his truly held oppinino as I have seen him express it before. I pretty much refuse to put people on ignore, I have been tempted to do it to amicus, but no. Juan makes the list because he's never said anything worth reading. Now I make a concious desision everytime i open one of his posts and I prepare myself ahead of time to get ready to laugh at him.

Well, Seatle Jack does post less ranty things on occasion but overall, he uses nicer words to say the same types of things and this post was the last straw for me. I've been giving him the benefit of the doubt- but it's over now.

It's wonderful that he tries to help these kids and that he takes it so personally. I think that he's probably doing a better job at 'breaking the cycle' than he knows.

But I'll tell you something. Kids love there parents- despite the problems they may have with them. And I think he needs to seriously fix his attitude about the parents of these kids if he really wants to help them. I know from reading his post, that the last place I will ever turn to for help now is the Boys and Girls Club. And that's too bad, because I'm sure that not everyone there is a wholier than thou arragant prick who thinks he's better than struggling parents because he doesn't *have* kids. What fucking nerve.

I'm getting all worked up again. I don't think for a minute that the responsibilty for caring for our kids stops at popping them out. (reference to earlier thread) But I certainly don't need some childless volenteer looking down his nose at me because I don't meet his standards when he doesn't have a clue.

Yeah, some parents are extemly fucked up. How do you suppose they got that way? There parents were fucked up too. They once were the children that you now try to help. And sometimes they don't know any other way to be. They've learned the survival skills for the life that they were born into. You'd think that a volunteer at such an organization would understand that. People don't just decide to be fucked up or disfunctional. They don't go, "oh I think I'm gonna grow up to be a wife beater and a child abuser' No, they don't. They have years of conditionaing to do what worked to keep them on top in the shit barrel that they arrived in. Someone swearing at them and telling them that they are disgusting and stupid are not going to change them or help them in the least. Probably just add to the crap that made them the way they are.