Lil’ P reports on this hilarious line from the AP:
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a divorced, billionaire dad, said Tuesday that unwed fathers increase poverty and the government should take steps to get them back with their families.
Oh, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
Bless Lil’ P’s heart, he doesn’t even give you the most sexist line of the piece (but, of course, I will), when Bloomberg says, “‘Fathers have been missing from the table,’ said the mayor, a divorced father of two who made a fortune creating an eponymous financial data firm. ‘We have to do more to connect fathers to jobs and to their families.'” [emphasis mine]
Yes, you can ditch a woman and kids and skip out on child support, but as far as Bloomberg is concerned, that family belongs to you. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
You want to be a part of a family, you act like a part of a family. You don’t have to be married–in fact, I think getting married just because you’re having a baby often compounds the problem, especially if you’re young–but you have to be there and pay your share.
A “dad” is not some name on a piece of paper. A dad is the dude who’s there when the chips are down and who is fighting for you.
Does the system need to be reformed? Yes it does. The Butcher and I know a ton of people back home who have kids with their significant other but are intentionally not getting married because they can get more money single than they can together. I don’t think there should be a marriage benefit–I don’t think you should get more money for being married–but you also shouldn’t be penalized.
So, fine, but, at the end of the day, those men are not the men Bloomberg is talking about. They’re still a part of the family unit. They’re just scamming the system. If those men married their babies’ mammas, it would not reduce poverty because they haven’t not been contributing to the family.
Here’s my question. Why would we try to encourage men who refuse to contribute to families they helped start to marry back into those families? Never mind the problem with just ignoring whether the woman wants the man in her life in the first place, he has, by the very act of withholding child support, proved that he’s an evil jerk who doesn’t put his children’s welfare above his own needs. What makes Bloomberg think that being married would reform him?
Do all poor women have magical cooters? If we can just keep bad boys in them long enough, eventually they’ll be transformed into good fathers?
And what are you going to do with the men who have five kids by five different women? Or even two kids by two different women?
What if the man’s still single but the woman has married someone else?
And, not to ask the stupidest question, but how, if he’s poor and she’s poor, is getting married going to magically make them not poor?
Seriously, is there some Harry Potter shit that politicians know about that the rest of us don’t?