Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Just off the top of my head, some opinions from just observing life
    and thinking about this issue before.
    
    1.  Too many men have to pay too little child support or don't
        pay anything.  (Men's answer to this seems to be - oh, ok
        then I'll go to court and get the kid and see how you like
        that - so maybe if you want custody of the kid you better
        not complain about child support.)
    
    2.  Even when women are paid the same as men in the same job
        a larger percentage of women than men have low-paying jobs
        such as secretarys, sales clerks, waitresses, etc.  It
        seems to me that the type of job the (for lack of better
        word) "uneducated" men get are higher paying jobs.  For
        example, truck drivers and maintenance men tend to earn
        more money than secretarys or waitresses.  So, I guess
        you could say that it is easier for uneducated men to earn
        a living wage in America than uneducated women.  Here at
        Digital we see an elite sample of women with high paying
        jobs - engineers, product managers, financial analysts.
        These women are not typical of the country in general.
        And when people with low paying jobs complain people say,
        well, work harder, advance, get a better job.  Yet, there
        is not room for every woman in the world to be a cost center
        manager.  We need someone to clean the restrooms, answer phones
        and take our money in the cafeteria.  But, until these people
        earn a living wage there will always be poor women in America.
    
    I'll no doubt get flamed for this, but, hey, it's been awhile.
    It's also been awhile since I wrote a note about something that
    means as much to me as this does, too.
    
    Lorna
    

    I'll agree with the points you raised, Lorna.  There IS a lot of
    unfairness in that area.  However, my own ideas on combating that,
    and the "women on welfare" are these:
    
    *Stress EDUCATION for our sisters and daughters.  
    *Emphasis on "doing for yourself"; depending on yourself, being
    self-reliant.
    *Don't wait for a man to come along and take care of you.
    *Be as MUCH in this life as you can.
    
    And no, this isn't just dreaming on my part.  I teach at night,
    and my students range anywhere from age 6 to 48.  Where I may not
    come out and say the above to them in just those words, I do try
    to slip values in wherever I can.  I narrowly escaped making a serious
    mistake when I was 18--I wanted to get married to my first lover
    (!) and drop out of college.  Fortunately I dropped the lover and
    kept the college. :-)
    
    About the women who are NOW going through these problems, it's hard
    to have answers, good ones, anyway.  But in my teaching I have met
    and talked with a number of women who have been battered, raped,
    left with children and no money, and who have so little education
    that they are forced to waitress or clean restrooms all their lives.  
    There's no magic answer, but I still stress education where possible,
    and getting involved with womens' groups, etc.  Sometimes just the
    example of a woman "battling the odds" starts a flame that inspires.
    
    Hope I haven't lost you,
    
    Jane

re .2:
>   *Stress EDUCATION for our sisters and daughters.  
>   *Emphasis on "doing for yourself"; depending on yourself, being
>    self-reliant.
>   *Don't wait for a man to come along and take care of you.
>   *Be as MUCH in this life as you can.

AMEN!  My mother saw to it that her daughters went to college and majored
in useful things (Computer Science, Medicine, and Engineering).  All the
time I was growing up college was something that I would "of course" be
going to, and after that I would get a well-payed job and be able to
support myself.  She didn't want us winding up trapped like her mother.

It wasn't until I got to college and met my first roommate that I realized
there were other viewpoints (she was more interested in filling her hope
chest and finding a husband then in getting a degree and a job).  Her
mother kept giving me hints on how to "hunt down and trap a man".

Susan

    We go round and round on this issue and the answer always seems
    to be more education. 
    
    The reality is that not everyone is equipped with the ability to
    learn.
    
    There is another reality, we do not have an adequate supply of support
    people.
    
    We have to have a system whereby the income of secretaries is adequate
    for them to live.  We have to insure that there are apartments they
    can afford to rent.
    
    And yet our system is a good one and we should not take away that
    incentive or motive for doing better.
    
    I moved to Marlboro in 1960...at that time there was a decline in
    the shoe industry...some factories remained but the heydey was over.
    These people owned homes, these people had cars, these people had
    children.  But the children of the shoe workers cannot duplicate
    what their parents accomplished.  I don't understand, what has 
    changed?

    
    	re .1
    
    	Come on Lorna, don't look at it so one-sided.  

    
         1) too many men ??? Pay to little ??? Where did you get these
            stats from.....And how do you know what all the circumstances
    	    are for each individual case.
    
    	2) And what about Male Sales Clerks, Waiters, and Male
    	   Secretaries......Then there's women truck drivers,
    	   and women maintenance people.....
    
    	And if these are opinions, on what grounds are you making these
    	opinions.

    
    			Mike
    

    Re .1
    
    
    I agree. The people at the top couldn't make it without all the
    support troops on the bottom, and anybody willing to work shouldn't
    be paid below a decent living wage. It goes without saying that
    raising a family is real work, and essential to national and social
    well-being. It should be valued and supported accordingly.
    
    Bruce

    I discovered an interesting fact a year ago or so.  President Reagan
    saw that the number of poverty stricken people in America was rising.
     What did he do?  Did he increase funding for them?  Welfare?  Food
    stamps?  health care?  education?  job programs?  
    
    NO
    
    Instead, he lowered what would be the delimiter between non-poverty
    and poverty from $11,000 per year (what it had been) to $9,000 per
    year.  I'd just love to see the person who can live on that -
    especially if it is a single mother with children.  The problem
    needs more help from those in power - corporations - educational
    institutions and boards - the government....but without a loud enough
    group of voices shouting for it - it'll never happen.  Anyone know
    who to write?  any bills up for voting in the senate?  I want to
    help.
    
    Jody
    

    Re .5, male secretaries and female truck drivers are certainly the
    exceptions.  Are you trying to deny the fact that even though the
    work force of America is made up of more women than men, that men
    still earn a way larger portion of the money?  Have you ever looked
    at the orange Corporate Organization Chart found in the orange Policies
    and Procedures manual?  I'm looking at it right now.  I count 66
    men's names.  I count 3 women's names.  These are the top executives
    at Digital.  Do I really have to say anymore?  Obviously, even women
    with college degrees are still having a more difficult time to get
    the type of job a man with the same education has.
    
    You ask what I've based my opinions on.  I've been alive for 37
    years, and I'm fortunate enough not to have been born deaf and blind.
     I would think I could at least have the right to express my opinion
    of the world I have been observing.  You certainly seem to feel to
    have that same right from what I've read of your notes.

    I do agree with the people who say stress education.  That's what
    I'm doing with my daughter and what nobody saw fit to stress with
    me.  (If my daughter ever buys a hope chest I'll feel like braining
    her with it!  Women may as well just buy a casket for themselves
    if they're pinning all their hopes on marriage!)
    
    Lorna
    

    
	Sales Clerks are also exceptions...
        	I didn't deny anything....you gave three examples, and I gave
    	three counter examples...if you had mentioned before about the
    	Corporate Policy Manual, then I wouldn't have said anything...

    	I didn't say that your opinion was wrong, I just asked how
    	you formed your opinion.  Many Men too me seems, like more than
    	half of the men, and I just couldn't see how the courts could
    	make a wrong decision on more than half the men that are doing
    	child support.  Personally, my opinion, if the men are to selfish,
    	to supply enough money for their own children, then the hell
    	with them.  But maybe some fathers feel that their money aren't
    	going to the kids needs..case in point...
    	
    	I know a women, who is 23, she has a 5 year old son from her
    	boyfriend.  He pays her $425 dollars a month for child support.
    	She then got married to a person who made $$$, had his own 
    	business.  She wouldn't let him adopt her boy, because she
    	didn't want to lose that $425. I can kinda of understand where
    	you is coming from NOW, but back then I couldn't.  Well, she
    	got divorced after a 1 1/2 year marriage.  She still gets her
    	$425 a month, gets welfare from the state, lives at her mothers	
    	house now, works under the table doing odd jobs.
    
    	Her Mother pays for all the food that her boy eats.
    	Her Mother pays more than half for his clothes
    	She has zilch in the bank...
    
    	Do you know where the money goes...not to the kid,
    	but to a COKE habit.
    
    		Mike
    

    There are all sorts of solid statistics to prove that most "female"
    jobs do pay only 60% of what a "male" position does - which is one
    of the reason that women have fought to obtain jobs in male dominated
    areas.  i.e. truck drivers, line repair jobs in phone co., etc.
    A male high-school dropout still makes more hourly than a high school
    graduate who happens to be female.  From my previous experience
    in the working world - Digital does a better than average job at
    pay scales.  However, society as a whole does not recognize the
    value of those working in somewhat intangible areas,
    teaching,nursing,etc.It is far easier to determine the worth of
    a piece-worker, per production.  It was appalling to me as an employee
    of a major concern in Boston to realize that the bus driver made
    almost double the amount of my salary and yet I was responsible
    for formulating analyses of how to determine salary scales of various
    clericals working for this concern.
    
    One of the greatest areas of increasing female poverty is the
    current social security system.  If a woman has never married the
    likelyhood is that her benefits would range somewhere around 500-600
    a month - (based on lifetime earnings - and also those of last say,
    10 years- when most have peaked in their earning capacity) and most
    women of retirement age are not covered by any
    company pension plan.  It has only been of recent years that mandatory
    laws covering pensions were enacted as protection for all.  
    
    So while "we've come a long way - it's the first step, after the
    crawl!
     
       

    re .9
    
    Mike,
    
    Many of us seem awfully quick to hold out the occasional welfare
    cheat as some sort of justification for our current practices.
    The fact remains, however, that women and children are over-represented
    among the ranks of the poor.  This is largely due to:
    	inequality in pay and hiring practices
    	inadequate health care, day care
    	inadequate social security benefits (especially for widows over
        age 65- many of whom did not earn wages at all, and have no
        other income)
    
    It is, of course, possible to find examples of almost anything,
    but if we look at general trends, it's pretty clear that many women
    are trying to raise children on inadequate incomes.  Some of this
    is because some men default on the child support payments.  Many
    of these men have sufficient income to make those payments, and
    even in cases where they don't, I suspect that compromises could
    be reached.     

    Agreed. One can find examples of *anything* if one looks.
    
    Fact: Women (as a group) earn 59c to the dollar men earn (as a group)
    Period.
    
    I taught school. Everybody at the same step level makes the same,
    male or female. I now work at DEC, and while I have no idea as to
    what other folks make, I have trust in the particular management
    I work for, so things are cool.
    
    The real world is not teaching scholl or working in a well-established
    high-tech business. (that's "school" - sorry)
    
    Whoever said it was right (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Equality
    isn't when a female Einstein gets paid equally to a male Einstein;
    it's when a female schlemiel gets paid equally to a male schlemiel"
    
    Dawn
    

    If we ever start a note in any of these files about poverty, welfare
    and/or child support that someone doesn't bring up the case they
    know about "blah, blah, blah....ad nauseum"
    
    TALK ABOUT AN URBAN LEGEND!
    
    Something has happened to our economic system that prevents people
    in support roles from making a decent living...I was thinking about
    it after I wrote a reply to this note last night.  Could it be that
    the largest percent of our population is professional so therefore
    the demand for services equates with the needs of that part of the
    population and that being so the cost of the services are relative
    to the income of the population demanding the services.
    
    During the Industrial Revolution the largest part of the population
    was the blue collar worker.  They determined the price of goods.
    
    As much as I hate government intervention we need it.  We need to
    provide tax incentives to encourage landlords to adjust their rents
    to tenants salaries...we need to encourage food cooperatives...we
    need to make it possible for the secretary and the janitor to buy
    a home, have a decent car and have children.
    
    And we need to forget the exceptions....because that is exactly
    what they are...exceptions.  Of all women who receive child support
    how many do you really think live at home and have a coke habit?
    
    And the day there is a note about welfare, poverty and/or child
    support payments that has 25 replies from 25 different people
    that does not include an example such as the one in .9 I will 
    personally treat those 25 people to lunch at McDonalds.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    P.S.  We may have to wait for our burger though, because they are
    short handed.

    
    Boy, am I gonna get it for this one:
    
    No amount of legislation, no amount of education, and no amount
    of money is going to alter the situation for women until they want
    it changed.
    
    I would be the first to admit that my life experience is not a
    statistically significant sample, but I've met an awful lot of females
    who are smarter than I am who want nothing more than to find a man
    to take care of them.
    
    Can this all be the fault of oppressive male dominated society?
    Well, maybe.                                                   
    
    DFW

    
    If there are a greater number of women on welfare, then maybe it's
    time they stopped blaming everyone and everything for their situation
    and instead took responsibility for it. Only then will the first
    step have been taken towards rectifying it. 
    
    Secondly, we don't need to make possible for janitors, etc, to ba
    able to afford a house or a nice car, or to have yet more children
    when they cannot afford even one. Instead, the opportunities are
    there for all of us to improve our lot in life.
    
    Third, welfare cheats are rampant, not the rare exception. 
    Thats why they keep getting brought up in discussions like this.

    re .14 and .15
    
    I *will* wait 24 hours to cool down about this stuff, but I feel
    compelled to say something.  
    
    Many people in this country have managed to emerge from poverty,
    to overcome all sorts of obstacles in order to become successful.
    It seems to me, though, that people who start out in poverty or
    as members of oppressed groups really have to be exceptional in
    order to get access to resources that most of us take for granted,
    e.g., education, shelter, medical care.   Those of us who grow up
    as members of privileged groups don't have be exceptionally bright
    to go to college, for example, and going to college does increase
    our chances of earning decent to better-than-decent wages.  
    
    I think that many of us are guilty of a certain amount of "victim
    blaming."  I think we do this not to be mean but to feel safe. 
    A lot of the sociological literature on this topic suggests that we 
    are all so frightened of being victimized (in some way) ourselves that 
    we seek to put as much distance as possible between "us" and victims - 
    "them."  As long as we see ourseleves as different from or superior
    to victims of crime, poverty, even illness,  we feel less likely
    to suffer the same fate.  This certainly seems to be a perfectly
    human, natural response, but I think it gets in the way of our ability
    to understand the ways in which many of us are oppressed.  I can't
    honestly say that I have eliminated this tendency entirely in myself,
    but I am working on it.
                                                 
    							... Justine

    
    	RE .13
    
    	I don't understand why you didn't like my example....
    
    		Mike
    

    re .15
    The idea that welfare cheats are rampant is indeed another type
    of "Urban Legend". There have been numerous probes of the welfare
    system that have proved time and again that the vast majority
    of welfare recipients come by their benefits honestly. This is
    another example of a myth that has been debunked so often that
    it is surprising when it continues to reppear.
    
    Bonnie J

    re .17
      
    
    You know why I don't like your example Mike.  Because I worked two
    and three jobs to support my children while they were growing up.
    I was on welfare for a year and a half and I worked at Digital for
    less then a janitor while I was raising those kids, and I went to
    college and I advanced myself at DEC and I am not the d*mn exception I
    was the rule and for there were thousands like me, g*d*mn you for
    talking about a woman that you knew that was on coke and lived with
    her parents because she was the she was the exception!!!
    
    I have fought the poverty issue in Soapbox and I will fight it
    here...the economic picture has changed and our government or our
    society should make adjustments to compensate for these changes
    and every time you self righteous people site an example of abuse
    of the system you satisfy the other self righteous people who want
    to think the same way you do.   
    
    The fact is there are very few people cheating the welfare system
    just like there are very few people who are not contributing at
    Digital.  
    
    In all these conferences there has never been any real statistics
    and all these inferences.  Welfare is not fun, it is not fun living
    on secretary's wages, and child support rarely makes people rich.
    
    There is a bottom line....
    
    People's skills should be compensated equally whether or not the
    task is performed by a male or female.
    
    People who work should 40 hours a week should be able to house and
    feed themselves.
    
    And if a woman should agree and/or want to remain a support person
    for her husband and family her contribution should be recognized.
    
    You all know what the no - no's are!
    
    Thanks Bonnie!
    
    
    
    
    
    

    
    re. .20
    
    well spoke!
    

    RE .18  Assuming of course that welfare is an
    honest enterprise in and of itself. I'd be happier
    with voluntary charities than State-sponsored,
    IRS enforced giveaways.

    Re .22, my bet is that if we had to depend on voluntary charities
    that people now on welfare would be starving in the streets.
    
    If you don't trust the honesty of the welfare system, which is run
    by people, what makes you think the wealthy private citizens of
    America care enough about the poor to volunteer to help them?
    At least with the welfare system, many deserving poor people get
    help.
    
    Lorna
    

    re 18 and 20:
    
    Thank you both - well said.
    
    	-Ellen

    
    	I was not referring to the Damn welfare.  Read my reply. My
    reply dealt with the father paying child support.  Don't just read
    what you want.  Read the whole damn thing and the proceeding notes.
    And don't say Goddamn me. That's one thing I won't stand for. 
    
    	Mike

RE: .0

Why are women living in poverty? How come businesses don't pay women
equally? Why do children starve? How come women stil have to stand in
welfare lines?

The answer is SEXISM, an institution of SYSTEMATIC discrimination against
women.  Men get the benefit, women pay the price.  

Take a look at who agrees with this analysis and you'll see who's on the
side of women. Take a look at who justifies the situation, or who
trivializes or ridicules your objections to the situation, or has an
irrational response or irrelevant comment, or tries to push the topic down a
rathole, and you'll see who's not on the side of women. Take a look at who
says in thousands of ways that it's women's own fault that they're poor, or
that men are suffering just as much deprivation and are just as much the
victims of injustice. Then draw your own conclusions.

Don.

    I talked in an earlier not about "victim blaming," and it seems
    that there is a culture-wide disdain for: Welfare recipients, Women
    who receive alimony and/or child support payments, and (to a lesser
    extent) divorcees.  Belonging to all three of those groups for even
    a short time has got to be tough.  Stories about welfare cheats
    and women-who-take-their-husband-to-the-cleaners have become almost
    as prevalent as ethnic jokes.  So hearing comments like that in
    a forum like this has got to stir up a lot of anger.
    
    Even though a small percentage of women may abuse the child support
    payment system, there are many more men who do not make their payments.
    Seeing abuse of a system close up may color our judgement, but factual
    data do not support claims of wide-spread abuse of the system by
    mothers.   Stories about mothers spending their baby's money on
    coke may sell newspapers, but those stories also serve, I think,
    to perpetuate dangerous myths.
    
                                                       Justine

     re .25:
     
     If you don't want to be flamed, maybe you should be more judicious in
     the evidence you give to support your argument.  First, you use the
     Reaganesque approach of telling us about some whom "you know" -- you
     are apparently asking us to believe that:
     
         1. You are giving us an accurate representation of the facts 
            as you know them,
         2. You know the facts of this particular case, and
         3. This case is somehow representative of other cases.
     
     Sorry, but you aren't going to convince anyone using that approach.
     
     Next, you gripe because you claim someone misunderstood you about
     welfare.  It sounded like a sneering comment to me -- why did you
     bother telling us about welfare?
     
     And why do I get the unmistakeable impression that some people who
     complain the most loudly about child support and governmental
     assistance are best categorized as greedheads who, having a
     well-paying job of their own, could care less about anyone who
     doesn't? 
     
     --Mr Topaz 
     

    
    	I gather then its OK to talk about how the man doesn't pay
    	or doesn't pay enough to his ex-wife, but we can't talk about
    	the ex-wife taking the ex-husband to the cleaners.  After living
    	in the Lawrence area for 17 years, I've seen and read about
    	more cheats.  You don't think it pisses me off to see this
    	happening....It's just the same as ripping of the IRS......
    
    	I definatley see this file going to a one-way street more and
    	more....Wonder why alot of the people don't stay in here anymore...
    
    			Mike
    

    
    re .28
    
    	facts of the case....I consider the I know the facts of the
    	case when I'm involved with them !!!
    
    	about welfare.....If you tell the story, tell the whole story
    	not just what people want to hear....
    
    	

    Greedheads?
    
    Let me tell you something about *this* alleged greedhead.
    
    Yes, I have a well-paying job.  Yes, I am a conservative.  This
    does NOT mean that, by definition, I don't give a damn about the
    poor!
    
    Too many times for coincidence/urban-legend have I seen people in
    the checkout lines at supermarkets pay with food stamps while carrying
    an American Express.
    
    Too many times for coincidence/urban-legend has my adopted sister
    seen people drive up to the medical clinic where she worked in Detroit
    in NEW Cadillacs and then flash a Medicare card.
    
    Too many times for coincidence/urban-legend have I seen people in
    TRUE NEED of a hand-UP [not a hand-OUT] who can't get it due to
    the beauracracy.
    
    I started in the "lower" class and worked my way up.  My mother
    did the same as a single parent with no child support.  She didn't
    moan or complain, she *worked*.  I had to take care of myself early
    on because of that but IT CAN BE DONE!  We were never on ANY federal
    programs.
    
    Why?  The way they are run now only perpetuates the poverty class.
    
    Why would we rather see charities do the job?  Because volunteers
    and private citizens do the job a LOT better than civil servants.
    
    The United Way get over 90% of the money donated out to the poor.
    The Feds spend over $30,000 per recipient on welfare/et al.  Do
    they see 90% of it?  Hah!
    
    You tell me who does a better job.
    
    The poor deserve better than our government.

    Boy, is this a touchy subject.  I have been a single parent for
    18 years, with no child support.  Yes, I had a court order to get
    support, but no one enforced the order.  All my ex had to do was
    move to another state and the process would start all over again.
    I spent thousands of dollars in court costs and legal fees over
    the years and never got a cent in support. I finally gave up about
    10 years ago.  My kids are adults now so I chalk it up to experience.
     
    I was a social worker here in Mass before DEC, and I must say that
    the welfare cheats are a minority, but they are out there alive
    and well.  I was what was called an intake worker, my job was to
    screen new applicants. The process is really thorough, but there
    are always people out there who learn how to beat the system.  We
    used to call the investigators the "fraud squad". Most of the cases
    that I was aware of were all involved with duplicate social security
    numbers, and people would get  more than one check or they would
    claim more children than they really had.  
    
    I have worked two or more jobs for most of the last 18 years. I
    am currently working 2 jobs, and have had the second job for almost
    10 years.  My second job is in retail, and contrary to the comment
    in.5, retail is a very female dominated area.  I work for Jordan
    Marsh which happens to be one of the better companys to work for,
    but until 2 years ago most of the men who worked there worked in
    commission depts ( furniture, major appliances, shoes, mens suits
    etc) Two years ago the did away with commission depts but the salarys
    were determined by averaging the previous 13 pay periods. Most of
    the sales associates who were on commission ended up with higher
    saleries than those who worked in non commission depts, So the men
    make more than the women again.
    
    I work 2 jobs because I do not make enough here at DEC to support
    myself at a level that I am comfortable with.  There are a lot of
    folks here at DEC who don't make a lot of money that aren't secretaries
    or janitors.  
    
    I agree that education is important to get people off welfare, but
    until our president admits that we have poor and hungry people here
    in this country, it won't happen.  The took away the breakfast programs
    from the public schools, That was the only good meal some of the
    children got all day.  To say that because someone is given xdollars
    in food stamps means they don't need breakfast is a farce.  Alot
    of these parents don't know how to buy healthy food.  Some of these
    kids never have fruit or milk. They live on junk food and fast food.
    How can you educate someone who is not nutritionaly sound. The children
    don't have good health habits. WE have to start with the body before
    we train the mind.

    
    This is probably a ridiculous question, but I'm gonna ask it anyway.
    
    Is anyone aware of a reference that illustrates why the Equal Rights
    Amendment failed to pass?
    
    I would have to be a complete fool to deny the existence of sexism,
    and that the attitudes it espouses serve to keep many women from
    getting their due.  And that's awful.
                          
    However, I can't help but feel that something about the Equal Rights
    Amendment as a solution to this problem sealed its own fate.
    
    Perhaps I'm being naive, here, but bear with me.
    
    Approach any reasonable adult on the street and tell them that the
    going rate for getting some job done is eight bucks an hour.  Would
    these people really say that a man should get more than a woman
    for this work?  I don't think so.
    
    Somebody must have said, "Well, yes, okay, the Equal Rights Amendment
    would cast this principle in stone, just to take care of the
    unreasonable jerks who happen to infest personnel offices occasionally.
    However, it will also result in..."
    
    Add anything you like, from abolition of alimony to unisex bathrooms.
    I heard a number of truly bizarre claims as to what sort of
    repercussions the passage of ERA would have.
    
    I'd like to check into this, but I'm not really sure where to look.
    I mean, I seem to recall that ERA marched right along toward
    ratification for most of the time, and then all of a sudden it got
    stallede at the end.  I'd like to read something that indicates
    what that was.
    
    DFW
         
    

  Re: Don Sharp
  
  I agree that the problem is systematic but I would not characterize it as
  sexist alone; it is at least as much a problem of racism as sexism.
  
  Re: my own humble opinions
  
  My parents lived through the Depression and were fond of telling us
  children that the world does not owe anyone a living.  Perhaps because of
  early and frequent exposure, I happen to believe it.  That's why I am
  in favor of workfare as opposed to welfare.  If an adult does not want to
  work, I am perfectly willing to let him or her starve.

  Before the flames start, let me add two qualifications.  First, I think
  that a woman who is raising children in poverty *is* working -- she is
  performing a job that is at least as valuable to society as the normal
  workfare jobs.  Second, while I am willing to let non-working adults
  starve, I am *not* willing to let their children suffer.

  I believe that our society is rich enough to provide the basics of 
  subsistence to those who cannot provide for themselves (though, again,
  adults have to work for it -- anything else is demeaning to both
  the recipient and the society that provides aid).  The basics are food,
  clothing, and shelter.  

  Now let's talk about waste in the system (welfare cheats, food stamp
  cheats, and so forth).  *Any* system is going to have waste in it; the
  laws of thermodynamics require it.  But I have this sneaking suspicion
  that the yearly waste in social programs is less than the value of
  the coffee spilled yearly in the department of defense.

  Isn't anyone else outraged by the fact that a country with "surplus"
  food (a good portion of which rots in storage every year) does not see
  fit to make *sure* that no one suffers from hunger?  If we find that
  it requires 10% wastage to do away with hunger, I say we should pay it.
  (Actually, I don't think the waste is nearly this high -- I seem to
  remember that the Reagan administration reduced the food stamp program
  by only 3% but that was enough to bring back hunger after it was
  essentially eradicated in the '70s.)

  Shelter and clothing is just that -- no-frills protection from the elements.  
  Personally, I feel no obligation to help provide a *pleasant* existence
  for anyone.  Nor am I sure that we *should* provide a pleasant existence
  even if society could afford to do so, which it cannot.  There must be
  incentive for people to provide for themselves and begin to take part
  in productive society at whatever level they can.  

  Some people will never be able to take part in productive society through
  no fault of their own.  Some people will even choose not to take part.
  However, I don't see how these facts lead anyone to believe that society
  is required to provide anything more than subsistence.


  JP

    There will always be welfare cheats. There will always be cheats
    in football games. There will always be those who cheat their employer.
    There will always be those who cheat on child support. They will
    be male and female. 
    
    The fact is that more opportunities exist for males to "rise" from
    poverty than for females. Females consistently get paid less. The
    "lower" you go in the job market vis-a-vis lack of training and
    rate of pay, the LESS women get paid relative to men. Add to that
    the necessity for females *overwhelmingly* to also provide for child
    care, and you have a serious problem.
    
    In many cases, paying for child care reduces income to the point
    where it is not feasible for the woman to work outside the home.
    PLEASE don't bring up woman/families who have LOTS of kids to get
    state payments - they belong with the others in the paragraph above.
    
    It is consistently more difficult for a woman to get the money she
    needs to get out of poverty than for a man. 59c to the dollar. 
    
    Dawn
    

    Mike, I understand why you are pissed, and I think it's important
    to acknowledge that you have a right (like any of us) to cite any
    example you like in describing how you formed an opinion about
    something.  
    
    For many women it is extremely painful to first hear an example
    like that, and in the next breath be told by some government official
    that something is going to be taken away because of that example.
    
    I think that is where the pain and flames come from.  But I also
    think that everyone would acknowledge that there is some percentage
    of cheating and abuse--the disagreement would be about the actual
    percentage, and whether it is fair to judge the rest by that example, 
    NOT about whether it *ever* happens.  Of course it happens.  The system
    isn't perfect.  
    
    And there are hungry women and children who can't get benefits at
    all, and women who cannot work for some reason, but who fall between the
    cracks and get absolutely nothing.  And the street people who have
    no address.
    
    Opinion:  I still think men have a decided advantage in getting
    out of poverty.

    re .31:
    
	"The United Way get over 90% of the money donated out to the poor.
	The Feds spend over $30,000 per recipient on welfare/et al.  Do
	they see 90% of it?  Hah!
    
	"You tell me who does a better job."
    
    Well, I'm glad you brought this up, because I was planning on doing so
    myself. Would you like to know what percentage of HHS (those dreadful
    people who do welfare and Soical Security) money goes out? 99%.
    Yup, 99%. That's no typo.
    
    Think about it for a moment, those awful lazy civil servants (who are,
    all alike, after all and no better than the people they hand our hard
    earned money out to -- they obviously only work for the government
    because they can't get a real job) are ten times more efficent than the
    United Way. Scary ain't it.
    
    
	"The poor deserve better than our government."
    
    Yup, you're right, they do. But that's all they have. People have tried
    to eliminate hunger and poverty for an awfully long time. The
    government, for all its inefficencies, problems, bureaucray, etc. has
    done a damn good job. It's really not fair to kick them because they
    aren't perfect. They're doing a job that really shouldn't have to be
    done at all. But I can't help but feel that if the government doesn't,
    no one will. I've yet to hear of a reasonable alternative. Maybe you'd
    like to tell us about one. 
    	
    	Jon

    
    	Funny....
    
    	My Salada Tea Bag has this saying...
    
    			"Be sure your conversation generates
    				more light than heat"....
    
    	What do you think.....???
    
    			Mike
    

    re. Welfare Cheats
    
    If (and I'm not saying it is true) there are so many welfare cheats,
    could it be possible that the amount of $$ one gets as a welfae
    recipient is _so_ inadequate that a large number of people are
    essentially _forced_ to cheat in order to bring themselves up to
    the actual poverty level, rather than the extremely low poverty
    level as defined by our beloved govt?
    
    Lee
    

    PUBLIC APOLOGY.........
    
    To Mike McNulty...a big I AM SORRY!
    
    It was late last night when I was reading this note and all the
    replies started to blend together...and I flamed the wrong person.
    
    I am tired of the examples that people give to site why there is
    no injustice and Mike's example blended into RAINBO::MODICA's
    irritating reply.
    
    My remarks remain...but they are not directed specifically at Mike.
    That was not nice on my part and I like being nice.

    re .40:
    
    Please! The myth of prevalent welfare cheats is precisely that, a myth.
    Please help squash it; don't increase its life by dignifying it with a
    plausible explanation. 

	Jon

    
    Goddamn me? Thanks. I really feel great now. I was not attempting
    to give reasons why there is no injustice. What I was trying to
    say is that griping and blaming others for your lot in life is not
    going to help. I feel that you must take responsibility for the
    situation as it exists and fight your way out of it. Otherwise
    it is going to be a long wait for things for you to get better.
    
    Swear at me for this too if you wish, but I feel that the key to
    our society is the fact that the opportunity exists for everyone
    to improve themselves. Some may have it harder than some, but the
    opportunity is there. 
    
    As for welfare fraud, I can't help it if most of what I hear is
    about how people beat the system.  Until someone entered a note
    explaining the efficiency of the screening process, I didn't know.
    
    

    This was a personal topic for me that's why I asked the question.
    The first time this week I got to logged on.  
    
    I feel bitter about it because I knew of a male secretary who made
    more than me and my other peers (females) and we had been working
    longer than this just out of college guy.  So then I realized that
    men do get paid more (yes I was young and naive and thought we all
    got paid equally).  That's why I'm kind of upset.  I mean I've worked
    since I was sixteen years old and the only reason I didn't go to
    college was my brothers (who are younger) got to go first.  My father
    felt that men needed a college education more than a women (yes
    sounds like Archie huh). 
    
    If you want to talk about ex-wife's taking ex-husband's to the cleaners
    I know of an ex-husband who got house, furniture, kid, cat etc.
    I have also done alot of research about divorce and child custody
    and found out the 63% of all poor women loose their children to
    their ex-husband's because judges feel that they have to work outside
    the home to bring in a salary that she can't feed her kids on so
    he gives them to the husband feeling that he will remarry and provide
    a better home.  Is that fair?  I don't think so.  
    
    Food, shelter, car (not expensive), clothes are necessary items
    and I'm not for everyone making $80,000 a year but at least either
    pay a person decent wages or bring down the high cost of living
    so people who only make $12,000 a year can afford a place to live,
    and put food on the table and able to dress there children and pay
    medical expenses.  
    
    I've already written to congressman about it etc.  It does help
    and there are bills in the house ready to be passed.  It's basicly
    for housing.  They were thinking of 'rent control' (which they think
    is impossible) and only 'low income housing' but around here not
    many towns want low income housing.  (I think it's the stigma -
    low income means creeps, welfare etc.)
    
    I really hope something can be done about it because I think it
    is a serious *PROBLEM*.
    
    Bobbi
    

    re .45
    
    Funny.  Last I heard, women got the kids 90% of the time in a divorce.
    I don't think NBC subscribes to urban legends.
    
    When I got divorced, I got the house and most of the stuff and no
    alimony [fortunately there were no kids to worry about].
    
    People think I got off easy.  That's true.
    Others think my ex was ripped off.  That's patently untrue.
    
    Why?  I paid for the condo, I borrowed money from my side of the
    family to pay for it, I made EVERY payment with NO help.  That's
    strike 1.
    
    She was the one who walked out on me.  Strike 2.
    
    We agreed that she would take what was hers and I would take what
    was mine.  The car that she bought, broke some 3 weeks after the
    divorce [frame snapped in two].  Back then, I felt it was poetic
    justice for the [then] adulertous tart.  Strike 3.
    
    Now, we are the best of friends.  Why?  We stuck to the fair basics.
    She didn't try to rob me and I didn't drag her through the mud.
    We parted and things got a lot better.
    
    She is not paid very much, but she's happy.
    
    Who's to say that, in the end, this all is not fair?

    Re -1, I wouldn't normally refer to one of my best friends as an
    "adulterous tart".
    
    Lorna
    

    re: 46.
    
    That woman get custody of children 90% of the time is a myth.  If
    you want more information read "child custody" by Marianne Taskas.
    
    Believe it or not.......only one out of eight men go after custody
    because they care about their child's welfare.  One out of three
    go after for financial bargaining.  
    
    I too believe in fair play and if you paid for it then it should
    be yours etc.  
    
    :-)
    
    bobbi
    

>    I too believe in fair play and if you paid for it then it should
>    be yours etc.  
    
	Assuming both parties work for money for which they can "pay"
	for things.  If one works without money as the reward, then
	they "pay" for it with other things than money.  I won't even
	go into the idea that once your married, a lot of people tend
	to pool their resources, thus they both own everything.  Then
	how do you decide the split?

	...Karen

< Note 314.47 by APEHUB::STHILAIRE >
>    Re -1, I wouldn't normally refer to one of my best friends as an
>    "adulterous tart".
>    
>    Lorna

Absolutely correct.  I should have stated that that was how I felt about
her *at the time of the divorce*.  It was also the way she was acting at 
the time.  Remember, we were divorcing so things weren't pleasant.

After she dumped the guy who raided our marriage [she got a burst of 
self-pride], we realized that we should never have stopped being friends.

Fortunately, the friendship was easy to pick up again.

    POVERTY..What a waste of people.  Lorna, Jane, Joyce? (my guess)
    Mike, and others Hurrah for some of you and boo to the rest.
    
    poverty as the saying goes is a vacumn..it sucks.  I lived in the
    U.S. Navy for 12 years, and I know what Its like the Military 
    with families QUALIFY FOR FOOD STAMPS!  ITS hell pure and simple
    male and female are paid equally, (I am not qualified to comment
    on the fairness of the promotion systems.) but not enough to 
    support a family.  While working in Germany as A WELL PAYED 
    CIVILIAN, I have seen families split up and the Military
    member remain in Germany and the family return to the United
    States due to the extra cost of housing due to devaluation of
    the dollar..thats heartbreak pure and simple.  Dedication to
    your country and to live in POVERTY IS NOT RIGHT.  Who controls
    poverty, we do, use your pens and write to your congressmen,
    and if that does not have any effect, use your vote.  Maybe 
    someone else can help.  DO NOT ELECT THE PERSON WHO CAN SPEND
    THE MOST ON AN ELECTION CAMPAIGN.(SPELL)  Would you spend 
    $250,000.00 to get a job with Digital paying $50,000.00 per
    year? NO, Hell no you would not, then WHY IN THE NAME OF GOD
    DO WE ELECT THESE FOOLS WHO SPEND MILLIONS TO GET A JOB PAYING
    LESS THAN A HUNDRED THOUSAND?  WE ARE FOOLS, LEAD BY FOOLS,
    THE Expense (war chests of the combined candidates for the
    last general election) required to run for office would have
    increased the salary of everyone on welfare, if given to the
    people, to remove the majority from the welfare roles.
    
    EDUCATE YOURSELVES TO THE FACT THAT AN HONEST LEADER CAN
    
    NOT BE FOUND WHO SPENDS MORE THAN A YEARS SALARY TO RUN
    
    FOR AN OFFICE, AND IF HE OR SHE IS HONEST THEN THEY ARE AT
    
    THE VERY LEAST A FOOL.
    
    Lets start here and now to put these MEGA-MEGABUCKS TO work
    for equal and non-poverty salaries for all, this is America,
    now lets help get the right people into office.  Write the 
    $enator McDuck$ and Congre$$People out there and let them 
    Know that a limit of one years Salary for Senators, and 
    1/3 years Salary for Congressmen, and a Years salary for
    Presidential canidates is the maximum that we want,  and
    lets kick the POLITICITAL ACTION COMMITTEES OUT THE DOOR.
    
    PAC'S are not helping the women or men on poverty, and 
    the elected officials of this country do not represent the
    average man.
    
    Enough, I sound like a candidate for office and I want to
    be but I don't have the $$$.  I believe that the people of
    this country have a right to be heard and this notes file
    has enough readers to tell enough others, write you have a
    voice in running this country.
    
    LETS HAVE OUR VOICES HEARD...LETS UNITE AGAINST UNFAIR PRACTICES
    
    WHEREVER THEY ARE PRACTICED AND LETS GO NOTERS.
    
    DAVE ROYER. 

If I take money from you against your will, it is theft.  If I decide
to spend the money on "good deeds", it is still theft.  The ends do not
justify the means.

If I and a bunch of other people take your money, even to spend on good
deeds, it is theft, and a conspiracy besides.  What you earn is yours,
and nobody else has a right to it.  If they have a right to it, then
it was never yours to begin with, and neither is the labor you put in
to get that money.  If others have a right to the fruits of your labor,
without your approval, it is slavery.

Only if you choose to give some of your money toward supporting poor
people, etc, is it a moral transaction.  You have to be convinced.

The United Way has to spend money on advertising, to get people to
contribute.  The United Way does not employ goons who will come and
take your property away at gunpoint and sell the property to get the
money they want.  So not everything they take in goes to the final
recipients.

The US department of HHS gets its money from the "donors" whether the
"donors" want to give or not.  And if you don't want to "donate", then
goons really will show up, evict you from our house, sell the house,
and use the proceeds.  The IRS does not have to use the court system.
They think that you "owe" them the money.  If you hold back you
are accused of stealing from the government.  (How did it get to be
the government's money?  If they had a right to it then it would never
have been yours.  See "slavery" above.)

So don't vote for somebody because he says he will take more money
from A and give it to B.  If you think B is deserving of money, give
some of your own.  And try to convince others to give.

The ends NEVER justify the means.

    
    re .-1
    
    > re:. 39 Are you still sitting there comfortably numb ?
    
    None of your business...8*)
    
    	Mike
    

re: .53
>If I take money from you against your will, it is theft.  If I decide
>to spend the money on "good deeds", it is still theft.  The ends do not
>justify the means.

    So, can I arrest the department of defense for stealing my money to
    build weapons that I don't think are moral?  You don't like your money
    going to people-oriented programs; I don't like mine going to military
    programs.

>Only if you choose to give some of your money toward supporting poor
>people, etc, is it a moral transaction.  You have to be convinced.

    This sounds really stupid, but I'll say it anyway: There's nothing you
    can do about it. You're in a democratic society, which means that just
    because you think you've got a good opinion doesn't mean that it'll
    become the law. Apparently, more people (or at least more
    representatives) think that helping people is important.
    
    And because we're all human beings, we have to provide for each other.
    Why is it right for my tax money to buy weapons to defend everyone who
    needs defending if it's not right for the same money to feed those who
    need feeding? No one asks me if I want to pay for chemical weapons. No
    one asks people if they want to stay hungry.
    
    The problem with sharing a democracy with a quarter of a billion other
    people is that you have to spend money on stuff you don't like. I don't
    want to spend my money on *anything* related to defense (although if you
    press me on it, I'll admit that it's necessary). I'd prefer the money
    go to people who need clothes, shelter and food.

    So what can you do? You can contact your representatives to convince
    them to not support programs to feed, clothe, train and house people. I
    can work to get them to slow down on defense issues, and spend more
    money to help people.  We can both contribute time and money to causes
    the we believe in.

    					-- hs

    
    re .34
>    Is anyone aware of a reference that illustrates why the Equal Rights
>    Amendment failed to pass?
    
 The May  23,  1987  issue  of  The Nation magazine (available at newstands in
 Harvard Square, by subscription, and I'm not sure where else) has a review of
 two new books discussing why the ERA failed.  

 1. WHY  THE E.R.A. FAILED: Politics, Women's Rights, and the Amending Process
 of  the Constitution. Mary Frances Berry. Indiana Univ Press, 147 pp. $17.95.

 2. WHY  WE  LOST  THE E.R.A By Jane Mansbridge. U of Chic Press, 327 pp. $35.
 Paper, $9.95.

 To quote without permission from the review by Mary Jean Collins:

 June 30,  1982,  brought  to  a close a ten-year struggle to ratify the Equal
 Rights  Amendment  to  the  United  States Constitution. The effort failed in
 spite  of  the  fact  that  the  ERA was approved by large majorities in both
 houses of Congress in 1972.A 1983 effort to reintroduce the ERA failed to get
 the necessary votes in even one house. Yet a number of women's rights leaders
 have  recently  set  about reviving the amendment. The compelling analyses of
 the  last  ERA  campaign  offered  by  Mary Frances Berry and Jane Mansbridge
 affirm  that this strategy ignores the lessons of the past and is the pursuit
 of predictable failure.

 Berry, a  Professor  of  History and Law at Howard University and a member of
 the  U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, analyses the lessons to be learned from
 the  past  and  finds  that every successful campaign to pass a controversial
 amendment  built  a  consensus  at both the national and local levels. In the
 case  of  the  amendments abolishing slavery and granting citizenship and the
 vote to blacks, it took over fifty years of work and a four-year civil war to
 achieve  a  consensus  both  nationally and in a sufficient number of states.
 Proponents  of  the  income  tax  and the women's suffrage amendments built a
 state-by-state  consensus  first;  in  the  case  of  suffrage,  the  growing
 population  of  women who had won the vote in their own states then pressured
 their  representatives  to  enfranchise women nationally. Berry believes that
 the lack of a swift and well-organized state-by-state compaign doomed the ERA
 to failure almost immediately after its passage through Congress.

 She also  points  out  that constitutional amendments tend to be passed after
 the  Supreme  Court  has  blocked  a widely supported law or action. The Dred
 Scott  decision  tht  slavery could not be restricted without a constituional
 amendment  led directly to the passage of the 13th,14th, and 15th amendments.
 Before the 19th Amendment granted women suffrage, the Supreme Court had ruled
 that  a  ban on women voting did not violate the constitution. But during the
 ten  years that the ERA was before the state legislatures, the Court weakened
 the  case  for an amendment by prohibiting broad areas of sex discrimination.
 As  many common forms of discrimination were removed, those examples that the
 public  found less offensive or even welcome were pushed to prominence--among
 them, the all-male draft.

 Jane Mansbridge  writes  both  as  a  scholar and as a participant in the ERA
 campaign in Illinois. Like Berry, she believes the ERA failed in part because
 of  the  public's misperception that it would bring about fundamental changes
 in  the roles of women and men. She analyzes polls taken over the decade that
 show,  on  the one hand, strong support for the principle of equality and the
 ERA and, on the other, continuing support for the traditional roles of women.
 Mansbridge  points  out  that  the  amendment's proponents and opponents both
 exaggerated  its  effects  in order to mobilize their supporters; the ensuing
 debate favored the opposition, whose job was easier in the first place.

 While the ERAs supporters focused more on its long-term indirect effects, its
 oppontents  zeroed in on the draft, combat and abortion. Mansbridge maintains
 that  feminist leaders decided on principle to take the position that the ERA
 required combat equality, even though the War Powers Act could have been used
 to  argue  that women's participation would in fact be determined by military
 judgement  and  necessity. But feminists did not generally argue that the ERA
 would  require  abortion  funding  under  state  medical  benefits  programs,
 pointing  to  several  corut  decisions  in  states  with  ERA's as evidence.
 Nevertheless,  the amendment's opponents convinced many legislators and large
 segments  of  the public that the ERA and abortion funding went hand in hand.

 Was the ERA campaign worth the energy, expense and political capital spent on
 it?  Both  Berry  and  Mansbridge  believe  that  the campaign encouraged the
 Supreme  Court  to  bring  women  closer  to  equality  under  the  law. More
 women-from  both  sides-entered  the  political  arena,  and women's concerns
 became  more  visible  in  the  state legislatures. But both authors are also
 firmly  convinced  that  a  new  campaign for the ERA would lead to disaster.
 Their scholarship suggests that constitutional amendments serve to ratify the
 present rather than paving the way for the future. Rather than rushing into a
 costly  and premature effort to change the Constitution, the women's movement
 needs to address the hard task of creating a true consensus for equality.

End.  Sorry for any typos.

    
    In the words of a well-known alien, "Fascinating"
    
    Gonna have to hunt these up, as they sound like just what I'm looking
    for.  Many thanks to the poster of .57
    
    DFW

�   >>>> ... Rather than rushing into a costly
�   >>>> and premature effort to change the Constitution, the women's movement
�   >>>> needs to address the hard task of creating a true consensus for
�   >>>> equality.
    
�   Are Berry and Mansbridge suggesting that the ERA did not focus on immediate
�   problems and that is why it failed?  I disagree. 

    I think they are saying that if the Women's Movement can create a climate
    of equality then it will be relatively easy to obtain a Constitutional
    Amendment to enshrine the newfound equality in the Constitution, but
    that trying to enact the equality by amending the Constitution is as
    doomed to failure as for instance the attempt to create a sober society
    by amending the Constitution to outlaw alcohol.
    
    /. Ian .\

    I believe that .59 and .61 are missing the point of the quoted
    article:  that constitutional amendments confirm an existing
    social consensus, and that attempting to achieve a constitutional
    amendment without having first achieved the social consensus
    is wasted effort.
    
    I do not understand the references to the Supreme Court in .61.
    I was under the impression that all the time period for ratification
    of the ERA was the sole domain of the Congress.
    
	-Neil

    Re: why women have a hard time getting out of poverty
    
    It seems to me that anytime the economy makes it hard for white
    men to get a job that women and minorities are locked out. The
    assertions of the president aside it seems to me that more and
    not less people are out of jobs. So...all the poor folks have to
    fight each other to survive while the rich folks think life is
    great. 
    
    Re: welfare cheats
    
    I bet all the misused welfare money isn't even a drop in the bucket
    compared to what was ripped off from the DOD by contractors. Some
    of you were in a sweat over what poor folks did with your money,
    how do you feel about firms that sell overpriced,defective products
    that could kill "our boys" in battle. I say they are guilty of treason
    but most of them get off with fines that are smaller than what they
    made from ripping us off. That's where your tax dollars go. liesl

I think you have hit the nail on the head [from an angle]

Federal Government Problem #1:  Runaway spending on social programs.  The 
problem?  All of it is getting eaten up in the beauracracy and very, very 
little gets to the people who need it.  2/3 of the budget is for social and 
entitlement programs.  That's not the way it used to be and, according to 
elders who tell the tale, the services are worse than they ever were.

Federal Government Problem #2:  Same thing with defense contractors.  Funny 
how the Army/Navy/AF gets all these new high-tech weapons that keep costing 
more and more while we get high-tech computers costing less and less in the 
private sector.

Imagine, for a moment, that most [I'm talking even a paltry 51%] of the 
money we spentt on taxes GOT to where the dollars are supposed to go.  
Hell, we'd have so much of a surplus, we could cut taxes [after balancing 
the budget and starting to pay off the debt] which would put still more 
money in our pockets without hurting anyone!

But that's a pipe dream.  The 'system' stil keeps women, minorities and 
many other groups down once they get there.  The 'system' should be 
programs that are, in effect hands UP, not handOUTs.  [Insert picture of 
face showing extreme frustration]