America’s One Child Policy

August 29, 2011

.fullpost { display: inline; } Vice President Joe Biden, Commissar of the Cracked Head Club, visited China and voiced his understanding of China’s One Child Policy. The part that he understood was the forced abortions and the eugenics of baby girls. The part that he didn’t understand was how the Chinese government expects one breadwinner to support four retirees. But as usual Biden had it backward.

The Chinese government isn’t worried about how retirees will be supported, because they have no investment in them. They’ll receive whatever social benefits are doled out, and that’s it. China’s brutal pragmatism and lack of democracy makes rationing health care and anything else easy. Massive rallies and protests happen all the time in the People’s Republic, unreported by the media, and are ignored by the authorities. Tienanmen Square showed the limits of popular protest in creating political change. It’s a lesson that neither the leadership nor the people have forgotten. Biden should have really been asking his question in Washington D.C. While America has no official one child policy, it has promoted a shift from family savings and support, to a government supervised safety net. Taxes have gone up, the single income family has become rarer and birth rates have dropped. Marriage and children have become more expensive, the former has dropped at a staggering rate among lower income families, and the latter has gone up leading to large numbers of single parents.

The modern state has all for intents and purposes tried to replace the family, providing an expensive cradle to grave social support network. A network that favors those most who work the least.

The government replaces fathers, mothers and children. Children are cared for by the government. So are their elderly parents. The utility of having children diminishes. And the entire system is funded by higher taxes and economic gimmicks that decrease jobs and diminish buying power which lowers the number of self-supporting families, and lowers birth rates in general and especially among the productive working class who usually provide the biological base for population expansion.

Boosting tax revenues means rewarding spenders over savers, which leads to a consumeristic society that drives even more people into the social welfare system. And even those who stay out of it and try to save, are operating in a system whose monetary policy and programs are set against them. The short term tax revenue gains and monetary policy gimmicks lead to much larger problem as again they create more dependency as everyone is forced into relying on the government social safety net.

Birth rate is the engine behind the social safety net. If the birth rate falls, then even when practiced with the best intentions, the whole system becomes a massive Ponzi scheme. But how do you keep the birth rate high when taxes are high, higher education has become mandatory and a consumer society teaches people to reward themselves now, instead of deferring instant gratification until later?

And without a high birth rate, a major revenue gap opens up. If solvent long term funds were used to prepare for the gap, then the day of disaster could be delayed. But the same political elite that created the problem is also guilty of uncontrollably spending all those funds, and then holding out their hand for more.

In Europe, one answer has been more government subsidies for children. A typical statist solution that tries to use the unacknowledged source of the problem to create incentives to bypass its consequences. While subsidies can marginally increase birth rates, they do not address the real problem.

Taking away people’s money and then paying them to go shopping in order to stimulate the economy is common enough in the United States. And it never works. You can’t restore a healthy economy with subsidies and you can’t restore a healthy birth rate with some social benefits. It’s not just about the money, it’s also about the culture that was created by those policies. A post-family culture.

So the other Western solution is to import immigrants from a different culture with high birth rates. Europe has all but destroyed itself with that approach, and America is speedily following along. Sure, the total birth rate numbers look good, and no one is supposed to care how many European countries are set to be Muslim by 2100.

But the economics of it still don’t work because social utilization goes up drastically to pay for all those extra children, many of whom will never work legally, others who will take far more out of the economy than they will ever put back in. The cost of trying and then imprisoning a single criminal for a year is staggering. Those rapes, murders and drug deals don’t just have a human cost– they have a shocking economic toll. And throw in a major riot like in London and the economic damage adds up to the loss of entire major cities.

And there we are back again to Europe set for a Muslim majority, and America set for a Hispanic majority, and both are going completely bankrupt anyway.

Chinese leaders could have pointed all this out to Biden, but they find it easier to let our civilizations collapse in their own time, while the Century of China gets underway. China may never make it, its own economy is parasitically interlinked with ours and its centrally planned economics and social unrest will probably take it down before 2050. This would be nothing new for China which has gone down this way before. And dynasty or party, it has never really learned from its mistakes.

And Europe arguably has never learned from the mistakes of the Roman Empire, instead again overreaching its conquests, outsourcing its defense, showing weakness at the worst possible time, opening cities to barbarians and engaging in absolute folly in a crisis have been repeated. And the United States is following along.

Peering at the world through the spyglass of history, it would seem as if every people are repeating their old errors again. The State of Israel looks a lot like the latter days of its kingdoms, placing its faith in an untrustworthy power, Egypt and Rome, and allowing itself to be led to disaster by internal division and treason. The Muslim world is aching to revive the Caliphate with the same end results, cultural decay and collapse.

It’s astounding that no one has learned anything in thousands of years except how to make a better smartphone. We can put people on the moon and make dinner in five minutes, but we can’t stop destroying ourselves in cycle after cycle of history while finding creative ways to justify our suicides.

America doesn’t need a One Child Policy, but it has one anyway that punishes childbirth among productive populations and rewards it among unproductive populations. That leads to a division of lower income populations into a working class and a welfare class. With the working class supporting the welfare class. Marriage is down among both classes. It’s too expensive for the working class and too unnecessary for the welfare class. Why bother getting married when the local aid office is already your husband, wife and parents combined? The more children you have, the more the government takes care of you.

If China’s One Child Policy is a moral horror, the Western One Child Policy is an economic and social horror that has already destroyed major European and American cities. And it’s just getting started.

The left’s fear and loathing of Western self-perpetuation translates into shrill agitation for population control. Which means more tax penalized one child or no child families in the West alongside ten child Bangladeshi families living off social welfare since tax penalties can’t be expected to apply to people who don’t pay taxes.

The countries worried about population growth have too little of it, and the countries that aren’t worried about it have too much of it. Globalists dream of some UN administered worldwide population scheme, but if no major country was willing to turn over its nuclear weapons to the UN, how likely is it that they’ll turn over their babies?

Ted Turner has praised China’s One Child policy and suggested that tax penalties could be used to dissuade large families, along with Cap and Trade for babies to allow those families or countries who don’t have children to sell their childbearing rights to more fertile people and places.

Turner’s plan would allow Europe to sell its child credits to Africa, but how would Africa afford it? China would have an entirely new export in baby credits, but the main countries buying it wouldn’t be able to pay for it either. There’s something ghoulish about such talk of trading unborn babies between the continents, aborted Western and Chinese babies being sold as credits to create new babies in countries subsidized by Western aid.

But we’re trading enough live babies already. There is a booming trade in Chinese and African babies being adopted by Western couples. As with other Western industries, the manufacturing is outsourced to China, while the Western consumer overpays for a product that seems convenient in the short term, but is highly injurious to him and his society in the long term.

The consequences of using the Third World as a baby manufacturing factory, through immigration or adoption, are the end of the First World. You can outsource your energy production to countries that hate you and finance a way of global terrorism. You can outsource your manufacturing and industry to countries that hate you and lose much of your economy and gain a powerful new enemy. But when you outsource your population replacement to peoples that hate you– then you’re gone.

A country can survive anything but its own self-inflicted genocide. And low birth rates combined with population replacement amount to that. Suicidal genocide by a civilization that no longer thinks there’s any reason to go on.

The West has subsidized population booms in the Third World with its medicine and its aid. Now it’s subsidizing its own population replacement by them. Uncle Sam, John Bull and Madam Liberty are sitting in a skyscraper somewhere with pistols to their heads, cheerfully making plans for their farewell parties. The parties will have a very diverse invitation list. And the evening will end with the suicide of the cultures that contributed so much to the world in the last 500 years.

But the fecklessness of Western liberals and liberalized conservatives may stem their self-inflicted suicide. Before the populations are wiped out, the economies will be.

America and Europe are coming up against the impossibility of maintaining their governments and their economies at the same time. They will have to choose one or the other, and whichever choice they make will leave their countries much less attractive to immigrants.

Either the end of the social safety net or the end of economic growth will significantly reduce rates of immigration and even lead to the exit of some immigrants. It’s already happening in America just on the current unemployment rates alone. A complete economic collapse would dramatically reverse the number of opportunistic immigrants who come for profits, rather than for freedoms. But this isn’t any kind of solution, it’s more like a suicide realizing that he can’t hang himself and jump into the water at the same time. He’ll have to choose one or the other.

But drowning a dog to kill the fleas on it is no answer. Even if you reduce the number of fleas, the dog is still dead. And it’s not clear if the dog can be revived again. The Russian people have never recovered from the damage done to them by Communism. Neither have their birth rates. America isn’t as badly off– but many European countries may have passed the point of return. The easiest way to tell may be to see which countries have an active political movement dedicated to national survival and which don’t.

The 2012 election looks set to come down to a contest between a candidate who favors open borders and economic growth– and a candidate who favors open borders and big government. Lucky us. We’ll get to choose between a man who still wants us to have hope and faith in being able to hang ourselves and jump in the lake at the same time– and a man who believes the future lies in jumping into the Rio Grande and lowering taxes. As they say north of the border, Dios Bendice a Estados Undisos Mexicanos.

Not that it matters. The fleas aren’t killing the dog, they’re feeding off its self-inflicted wounds. And the wounds are economic and cultural. Japan kept out immigrants, but its low birth rate and falling marriage rate, under the shadow of a big government maintained recession puts it in the same club as the rest of the First World It may avoid filling its cities with Third Worlders doing manual labor and low level crime, and instead replace them with robots, but it’s still on the path to extinction.

Meanwhile back in China, the Commissar of the Cracked Head Club, was explaining to his hosts who were trying to stifle their laughter, how unsustainable their system is.

“Poor dumb bastard,” they think, “doesn’t he understand that this is what drives our competitiveness. That Chinese parents push their child even harder to succeed when he is their sole source of support?

But how could Biden understand, what government control, estate taxes and the death of the family have robbed America of? Chinese families may have only one child, or two, but they still think in the long term. That child is their future. But Biden’s own party is barely capable of thinking two weeks ahead. His opposition is hardly much better. Show me a Republican with a long term plan for the country, and I’ll show you an unelectable candidate. Show me a Republican with short term solutions that ignore long term problems– and I’ll call him, Mr. President.

Having children is about thinking of the future. Cultures that stop thinking of the future, that cannot imagine the world going on after they die, find innovative ways to commit suicidal genocide. The left is right that having children is not selfless, it’s long term selfishness. It’s our willful desire to keep our blood and our people around on the planet long after we’re gone.

Long term selfishness like that built this country. It built a lot of countries. It raised industries out of the ground and covered the continent with people. But when a culture loses its sense of long term selfishness, what replaces it is a short attention span and instant gratification. And as the economic reasons for having children vanish, and so does the structure of the family, the reasons for having children diminish. The biological need is replaced by housepets and casual sex.

China’s competitiveness is personal, but it transcends the personal. Its leaders are venal, greedy and amoral– but they also think of the future. American competitiveness is personal. It doesn’t look to the future. Our companies are satisfied with making short term gains. Our politicians look for short term successes. Our culture seeks only to lock in the benefits of the present, while China sacrifices the present for the future. It does so in brutal and ugly ways, but you don’t have to fight a duel nicely to win. You just have to play to win.

Children are the staying power of a nation. They are its long term projection into the future. When a nation does not think of the future, then it has no children and when a nation has no children, then it has no future.
Sultan Knish


You can PROVE Anything About Boys Without Fathers

August 10, 2011
Why are we playing Lysenkoism with children?

Lashawn Barber
From fatherlessness flows many things…

Fatherless children are more likely to be poor, perform poorly in school, engage in premarital sex, become teen parents, abuse drugs, and commit crimes than children from intact families. Black children are significantly less likely than other children to be raised in intact families. In 2004, a mere 35 percent of black children were living with two parents, compared to 83 percent of Asian children, 77 percent of white children, and 65 percent of Hispanic children.
Despite decades worth of research on the damage wrought by illegitimacy, a research psychologist named Peggy Drexler attempts to argue that lesbian couples and “single by choice” mothers do a better job of raising boys than married couples in Raising Boys without Men: How Maverick Moms are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men.
Drexler, a mother of two and married for 36 years, interviewed a small and limited number of lesbian couples, heterosexual women who volunteered to deprive their sons of fathers, divorced mothers, and their sons. Her “maverick moms” reject “social judgments” and stress “communication, community, and love” in their roles as mothers.
In one form or another throughout the book, Drexler sets up the strawman, “Mother love doesn’t hurt our boys.” I have never heard reasonable people make such a claim. Unlike Drexler, most people believe that “mother love” and “father love” need to balance each other, which is why intact families are best for children. Drexler often exaggerates and uses the most extreme examples throughout the book to support her biases.
Raising Boys Without Men will give aid and comfort to single mothers, but a house full of them, no matter how well off, won’t ever change the fact that boys want and need fathers. Considering the utter devastation fatherlessness has caused in black communities, it would be easy to go off on Drexler, but she makes clear that she focused on mostly white, affluent lesbians and single mothers.

Time Magazine: The data that Gartrell and Bos analyzed came from the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS), begun in 1986. The authors included 154 women in 84 families who underwent artificial insemination to start a family; the parents agreed to answer questions about their children’s social skills, academic performance and behavior at five follow-up times over the 17-year study period. Children in the families were interviewed by researchers at age 10 and were then asked at age 17 to complete an online questionnaire, which included queries about the teens’ activities, social lives, feelings of anxiety or depression, and behavior.

Why didn’t she interview black single mothers and fatherless boys in inner cities, mothers whose fatherless sons are in and out of the criminal justice system, and boys who are fathers themselves by the time they’re teenagers? Drexler writes:

Like mine, most research in this area has concerned a primarily White and privileged population. Lesbian identity among socioeconomically subordinate groups is generally less visible or less affirmed than it is among more prosperous, White, educated, urban populations. Ethnographic evidence suggests that closeted lesbian and gay people of color often value racial solidarity over sexual adhesiveness. Racial/ethnic allegiances may deter disproportionate numbers of people of color from coming out.

In other words, interviewing poor or economically disadvantaged, black heterosexual or closeted lesbian mothers would not have yielded the results that Drexler, an advocate for white, affluent, lesbian-headed households, was seeking.
Incidentally, the feminist movement traditionally has been a white and affluent phenomenon, although its effects have reverberated through all levels of society. The late Betty Friedan was a suburban homemaker who likened her home life to a concentration camp. For whatever reason, she was unhappy being married and trying to raise decent human beings. It sounded like a personal problem to me, but her book, The Feminine Mystique, marked the unofficial beginning of the feminist movement and sparked a revolution.
Although women had legitimate claims, especially when it came to equal wages for equal work, feminism went much further by waging war against the last standing pillar of society: the traditional family.
Feminists argued that women should be free to work outside the home and to be sexually promiscuous (and irresponsible). Chasteness until marriage was Victorian and repressive, and marriage was stifling and demeaning. A new crop of young women became sexually available to men without the shackles of commitment. The archaic idea of marrying the woman you impregnate was thrown out with the rest of the garbage.
Women from affluent, intact families were able to bounce back from sexual irresponsibility (oh, the irony!) in ways that women from lower-classes, especially those who grew up without fathers, were not. In 1964, a year after Friedan’s book hit the streets and a year before Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan issued a report that warned of the increase of female-headed households in low-income urban areas and associated social pathologies, close to 25 percent of black babies were born to unmarried women. In 2006, the rate is 70 percent.
The irony of ironies is that despite the “independent woman” meme pushed by feminists, too many of their inner city and low-income “sisters” are not independent nor are they dependent on husbands-oppressors, either. They are dependent on the government. The state is the provider. The children grow up mired in a cycle of poverty that is passed from one generation of fatherless children to the next.
A recurring theme in Raising Boys Without Men, despite Drexler’s best efforts to downplay it, is the boys’ desire for fathers. They wanted men — masculine men — in their lives. The clear message of the book is that the boys’ hunger for fathers was trumped by the desires of their progressive “maverick moms.”
The feminist movement spawned generations of selfish women, absentee fathers, and shattered families. Some women may want to be free of husbands, but children certainly don’t want to be free of fathers. And no study will ever prove otherwise.

So what does this prove? If you want to you can prove anything with a study!

Image via Study Shows that Children of Lesbian Parents Are More Well-Adjusted Than “Normal” Kids – Zelda Lily, Feminism in a Bra @ zeldalily.com
Our daughter switches back and forth between Mommy and MamaMama or Mommy. To bypass the mayhem, Nora sometimes just calls us by name. “Don’t call me Erika!” I plead. “I like being called Mommy. You’re the only one on this planet who can call me Mommy.” But I’m not the only person on this planet she can call Mommy. Says, A lesbian mother wants to be the only mommy on Mother’s Day.

The Decline of Men or Just the Rise of Women?


Biden cheers the COWS [UPDATED]

April 26, 2010

the best way to insure that Marriage doesn’t work is to make a system that encourages women’s autonomy from men.

If limited-government conservatives are dreaming of taking back America for fiscal sanity in the November elections, they should study how the unprecedented decline in marriage and the increase in illegitimacy are the major causes of our bloated government and its gigantic welfare spending.  In 2008, 40.6% of children born in the United States were born outside of marriage; that’s 1,720,000 children. This is not, as the media try to tell us, a teenage problem.  Only 7% of those illegitimate babies were born to girls under age 18, and over three-fourths were born to women over age 20. The problem is the collapse of marriage as the social institution responsible for the costs of the care of children. via investors.com

The best way for tyranny to stay in power is to put those that are docile cows into positions of power. Biden doesn’t get that http://xrl.us/feminists are destroying our country. Title IX has caused men to drop out of school at a greater rate in an economy where the only growing sector is pink collar jobs. Top that with stimulus money that enforces affirmative action when the only sector hurting is the one’s that men work in.

There really needs to be an understanding with not just our leaders, but with our teachers down and social workers that the only way to cut costs to meet a budget so we can decrease the debt is through social change. Not an easy task. I fear however that some neanderthal libertarian will come in and just cut all social programs without spending on new social programs that teach sustainable living… aka Conservative values and fathers for children.
 
If women really are the bread winners because we become a service oriented society, I don’t think these Sugar Mamas will have the knowledge to still need men to raise their children. they default to government as their working model and this is how we got here. something needs to give. the problem with these cows is they are not intelligent. they are docile to fit in and accommodate. They will not have the creativity to realize their kids are all messed up because they are lacking a male. they still see men as a bank account.  What is more seeing a male as a need might hurt their vanity.  Women like to think of themselves as the object of need.  They see men as providers, not as a psychological pillars of strength for their children, but there is something men have that their children need to be stable citizens.  Children need a sense of responsibility and accountability.  They need to understand the burden of decision making.  These career women might be bringing home the bacon, but only because they are better at doing as they are told.  This does not bring a good character in children.  We are killing tomorrows leaders by giving children subservience to others as their only role model.

image via apimages.com

 Vice President Joe Biden exults as he tells female student athletes how inspiring they are to younger girls, during an announcement about action on Title IX that provides equal opportunities for female athletes, at the Charles E. Smith Center at George Washington University in Washington, Tuesday, April 20, 2010. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

He looks … just … a … little … too … exulted, if you ask me.  It’s as if he’s been spending too much time watching ’80s Canadian TV pedo-perv Fergie Oliver go for itty-bitty…  you can guess by watching this video:

And then took a few rides around California with this suspected bomb expert and his:”suspicious wire, with an on/off switch” in his pants pocket [that just happened to be] “found to extend from the pants pocket to the subject’s anus.”
I say keep it up, Joey. Between your antics and the Narcissist in Chief’s constant amateurisms, the TEA party movement could disband today and you guys would still get your butts whipped in November.

via feedyouradhd.blogspot.com 
Via Allahpundit UPDATE: Later in the day, Pluggers took the group to an amusement park (via Blogwonks): But not before he channeled Howard Dean (h/t: Matt, @Conservative Hideout) ORIGINAL POST: Joey Mumbles obviously went nuts today. Via Allahpundit UPDATE: Later in the day, Pluggers took the group to an amusement park (via Blogwonks): But not before he channeled Howard Dean (h/t: Matt, @Conservative Hideout) ORIGINAL POST: Joey Mumbles obviously went nuts today.

http://xrl.us/docile


Mothers Abuse Children 3 Times more than Dads – Federal HHS Statistics

February 25, 2010


The Left, The Progressives and their social state are looking to give more money to single mothers. We need to stop this!
Why are dads kept away from their children?
Perhaps it is time we realize that father’s protect children more than moms. It is a fact. The statistic prove this.
But apparently the agenda of feminists who created the draconian laws that kill and maim children are only interested in one thing: the maternal legalization of child abuse.

Biological mothers are 3 times more like to commit abuse against a child over a biological father. Child Maltreatment (2001)

How Common is Child Abuse?

In the US, an estimated 903,000 children (1.2% of all children) were victims of abuse and neglect in 2001.
  • 57.2 percent of victims suffered neglect (including medical neglect),
  • 18.6 percent were physically abused
  • 9.6 percent were sexually abused;
  • 26.6 percent of victims were associated with additional types of maltreatment.
Percentages of victims are similar for males and females (48.0% and 51.5% respectively).
Children in the age group of birth to 3 years account for 27.7% of victims. Victimization percentages decline as age increases.
In the US, more than half of all child abuse victims are White (50.2%); one-quarter (25.0%) are African American; and one-sixth (14.5%) are Hispanic. American Indians and Alaska Natives account for 2% of victims, and Asian-Pacific Islanders accounted for 1.3% of victims.
19% of reported and substantiated child abuse cases result in the child being removed from the home.

Who Is Abusing the Kids?

The answer may surprise you. It is most commonly not the proverbial “stranger” that most children are warned to avoid – it is more likely to be someone much closer to home:

  • 40.5% of all child abuse is committed solely by biological mothers
  • 17.7% of all child abuse is committed solely by biological fathers
  • 19.3% of child abuse is committed by both the mother and the father
  • 6.4% of child abuse is committed by the mother and some other individual
  • 1.0% of child abuse is committed by the father and some other individual
  • 11.9% is committed by someone other than the parents
  • 3.1% is committed by an unknown or missing perpetrator.

Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome (MBPS)

Definition:
Munchausen By Proxy Syndrome (MBPS) or Munchausen’s Syndrome By Proxy (MSBP) is a form of child abuse in which a parent systematically manufactures, fabricates or exaggerates the appearance of illness in a child in order to draw attention to themselves, elevate their own importance and manipulate the attentions of caregivers and medical professionals. Click Here for More Info on Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome
Description:
In Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome (MBPS), an individual – typically a mother – deliberately makes another person (most often his or her own preschool child) sick or convinces others that the person is sick. The parent or caregiver misleads others into thinking that the child has medical problems by reporting fictitious episodes. He or she may exaggerate, fabricate, or induce symptoms. As a result, doctors commonly order tests, experiment with medications and, in severe cases, may hospitalize the child or perform surgery to determine the cause.
Typically, the perpetrator feels satisfied when he or she has the attention and sympathy of doctors, nurses, and others.
It should be noted that there is strong controversy over the existence of Munchausen By Proxy Syndrome. The originator of the term, British Pediatrician Roy Meadow was discredited for misrepresenting statistical data in his expert witness testimony in the conviciton of mothers of children who died from cot deaths (also known as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome – or SIDS). In a nutshell, he testified that the likelihood of more than one incidence of SIDS in a single family was so remote as to warrant a conviction. Several cases in which he testified have since been overturned in British Courts. Crirics of the MBPS theory correctly point out that child abuse is child abuse and the burden of proof must be to reveal objective evidence of abuse prior to removing children from parental custody. For more information regarding the MBPS controversy see the links at the bottom of this page.
In some MBPS cases, since the parent or caregiver appears concerned, wrongdoing is not suspected. Frequently, the perpetrator is familiar with the medical profession and is skilled at fooling medical staff. It is not unusual for medical personnel to overlook the possibility of Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome because of the controversy srrounding it or because it goes against the commonly held belief that a parent or caregiver would never deliberately hurt his or her own child.
Children who are subject to Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome are typically preschool age, although there have been reported cases in children up to 16 years old. There are equal numbers of boy and girl victims of MBPS.
Statistically, 98% of the perpetrators of MBPS are female. Source: http://kidshealth.org/parent/general/sick/munchausen.html
Examples:
  • A parent observes symptoms of illness in a child that nobody else can detect, and insists that a battery of tests be performed.
  • A child contracts a common virus and the mother attributes the symptoms to an undiagnosed chronic condition.
  • A child is developing normally, but the mother insists she can detect symptoms of a mental disorder.
What it feels like:
For a child of a parent who is exposing them to MPBS – they may be made to feel alarm or discomfort as a series of strangers intrusively examine and interrogate them looking for things that might be wrong. They are frequently receiving the message from grown-ups that something is wrong with them. This can lead to developmental delay, fear of strangers – especially doctors and a distorted world-view .
For third parties – spouses or relatives of people exhibiting MBPS-like behaviors this can be a confusing and frightening experience. You may not have all the facts you need to judge what is really going on. On the one hand – you do not want to keep a child away from critical medical care when they need. On the other hand, you do not want the child to be exposed to unnecessary and intrusive investigations and diagnoses, not to mention the associated psychological and physical damage.
For doctors and health care professionals – it can be disturbing and frightening when confronted with a parent who is possibly manifesting MBPS. There is the underlying fear of a malpractice accusation when facing a parent who will not take “no” for an answer. There can also be the confusion of having to deal other family members who vehemently disagree on what the facts are. Many doctors ultimately err on the side of caution – referring to specialists and ordering additional tests and over-medicating and over-diagnosing just to protect themselves. This succeeds in protecting the doctor but is often not in the best interests of the child.
What NOT to Do:
When dealing with a possible MBPS problem:
  • Don’t get into arguments with the perpetrator.
  • Don’t go it alone or try to solve the problem yourself.
  • Don’t interrogate the child or share with them your disapproval of their parent.
  • Don’t ignore the problem. Don’t abdicate the problem to others. A child is possibly being abused. You must act.
What TO Do:
  • Seek COMPETENT advice from a well qualified attorney, Guardian ad litem or children’s advocate.
  • Document all that you have observed as thoroughly and candidly as you can.
  • Report what you have seen. Be honest about what you know AND what you don’t know (it will be uncovered anyway). Be objective and sincere – remember – it is a child you are representing and you must put the best interests of the child ahead of your own.
  • If you have regular contact with the child, assure them of their value, and praise their positive qualities.
For more Information on Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome (MBPS)…
Dr. Marc Feldman’s Munchausen Syndrome, Malingering, Factitious Disorder, & Munchausen by Proxy Page – Information Site about Munchausen Syndrome and Munchausen by Proxy
http://www.msbp.com UK Site questioning the validity of MBPS/MSBP syndrome with links to news articles and cases where the theory has been discredited.
http://www.ashermeadow.com MBPS education & information site.



US Child Custody Statistics
Many people believe that mothers are naturally better caregivers than fathers. And the US courts seem to agree. US Divorce Statistics show that a divorcing mother is 7 times more likely to retain sole custody of her children than a father:
USA 1990 Custody Statistics (19 States reporting) Percentage
Sole possession granted to mother 72.5%
Sole possession granted to father 10.3%
Joint possession 15.7%
Possession granted to other person(s) 1.4%
Fathers, who want to protect their children from an abusive mother, are sometimes afraid to take legal action because they fear:
  • Facing ridicule or disbelief from police or social services.
  • Losing all contact with their children at the hands of a gender-biased legal system
  • Facing steep legal costs.
  • Facing abuse themselves at the hands of the perpetrator
  • Being judged by their communities, families and friends.



Who Pays Child Support?
When it comes to child support, US census data indicates that:
  • 79.6% of custodial mothers receive a child support award
  • 29.9% of custodial fathers receive a child support award
US census data also indicates that fathers are more likely to fulfil their child support obligations than mothers:
  • 43% of moms required to pay child support are “deadbeat moms” – i.e. they default on 100% of the money they owe,
  • 32% of dads required to pay child support are “deadbeat dads” – i.e. they default on 100% of the money they owe.
One of the reasons that “deadbeat dads” get most of the bad press in the popular media is that there are a lot more of them – primarily for 2 reasons:
  • There are 7 times more fathers than mothers who do not have primary custody of the children.
  • Fathers are 3 times more likely than mothers to be ordered to pay child support than their female counterparts.



Qualifications for becoming a Mother
So who really does know best?
In the US, there are laws to protect all sorts of individuals from reckless behavior of others. For example, you must pass an exam before you may:
  • Drive a car,
  • Fly a plane
  • Operate a crane
  • Run a restaurant
  • Educate school children
  • Become a social worker or any kind of therapist
  • Diagnose an ailment or prescribe, dispense or administer any kind of medicine or medical treatment

But there is no qualification for becoming a Mother other than being female. Nor is there any review of your performance except in the most severe cases of physical violence and neglect.
When it comes to your treatment of strangers you may be prosecuted for:

  • hitting
  • slandering
  • harassing
  • stalking
  • invading their privacy
  • confiscating their property

When it comes to treatment of minors, parents are held almost completely unaccountable. Minor children of abusive parents are completely trapped in their environment – dependent totally on an overwhelmed legal system to take action – after the abuse has been witnessed and reported by a neighbor, teacher, doctor or social worker. Many cases go unreported.


The Role of Religion In Child Abuse
Children are repeatedly told that they are never supposed to hate, resent, criticize, disregard or abandon their parents. Instead they are reminded to honor them, obey them, cherish them, be loyal to them and take care of them in their old age.

This sends a confusing mixed-message to children who grow up in abusive homes. They can see the contradictions for themselves in the actions of an abusive parent – and often know that something is wrong about that. However, they will often be afraid to speak out to another adult, say anything negative about their parent or seek help for fear that they will be seen as “bad”.
It’s common for these children to reject their childhood religion in adulthood which they judge to have failed them, sustained the abusive parent and perpetuated the cycle of abuse.
By emphasizing the sanctity of marriage and traditional family roles, many religions discourage spouses of abusers – many of whom are victims themselves – from taking action to remove their children.


What Happens When the Children Grow Up?

What is surprising to many is that child abuse often extends long into adulthood although it often takes a more emotional,psychological or subtle form as children become physically stronger and more economically independent.
Adult children of abusive parents often feel trapped between maintaining an unhealthy relationship with an aging, yet disrespectful, stalking, slandering, harassing parent and being judged by extended family, friends and acquaintances if they choose to cut off all contact with the abusive parent.
Adult children of abusive parents are at increased risk of making poor personal, relationship and career choices in adulthood.
Abusive parents sometimes see things like relationships, career and outside interests of their young adult children as threats and may seek to undermine them.
Adult survivors of child abuse ultimately suffer in three distinct ways:

  1. They suffer the abuse itself
  2. They suffer the loss of knowing what should have been – the loss of a supportive parent, of a loving home and a safe refuge.
  3. They suffer the consequences of protecting themselves from that abuse. They are often left feeling guilty, judged, condemned by society, religion, their communities and their families.

Although this federal government report is the year 2001, there is NO REASON to believe the statistics have not changed with regard to who commits child abuse more against a child or children.



Ban Single Moms From the U.S. Military

November 19, 2009

I’ve always been against women in the military, except in clerical and USO-style positions because there is little upside and a whole lot of downside.  They get pregnant, and they’re of no use after that, or a poor baby suffers with some other caregiver.    Or other “spectacular” results:  we have Army cooks, like Shoshanna Johnson, in the war zone, and they get kidnapped in Iraq.  Then, when we do something about it and risk other soldiers to find the women and get them back in a way we’d never do for male soldiers.  And then they repay us by attacking other soldiers on CNN’s “Larry King Live” and defending Islamic terrorists like Nidal Malik Hassan.

alexishutchinson
Spc. Alexis Hutchinson: Using Her Baby Mama Status to Get Out of Duty

Or we have incompetent soldiers like Jessica Lynch, who–after a ton of training–still don’t know how to load firearms correctly and use them, can’t read a map, and get lost.  Then, we repeat by blowing our battle and security plans in order to find and rescue the female soldier. And they–at least, in Lynch’s case–get an undeserved affirmative-action-for-vulvas Bronze Star (and other unearned accolades and awards).
But those complaints don’t even take into consideration soldiers like Spc. Alexis Hutchinson, who are single mothers and jeopardize their kids’ well being if they go to war.  Statistics show that a large number of female soldiers in the military are, indeed, single mothers, likely with no father figure in their kids’ lives.  That’s bad enough.  What happens if they die?  What happens if they refuse to go when called up to go to war, using their kids as an excuse?
That’s what’s happening in Hutchinson’s case.  Her story shows how much our military is hampered by and bends over backward for single mothers in its ranks.  It’s absurd.

An Army cook and single mom is confined to her base in Georgia and may face criminal charges for skipping her deployment flight to Afghanistan in order to take care of her infant son.
Spc. Alexis Hutchinson, 21, who was arrested by military police Nov. 6, claims she had no choice but to refuse deployment orders when her mother was unable to care for her 10-month-old son, Kamani.

Her civilian attorney, Rai Sue Sussman, alleges that one of Hutchinson’s superiors at Hunter Army Airfield in Savannah, Ga., told her she would have to deploy anyway and place the child in foster care.
No charges have been filed, but Kevin Larson, a spokesman for the Army post, says commanders are investigating, the Associated Press says.
Larson says he does not know what Hutchinson’s commanders may have said, but that the Army would not deploy a single parent who had nobody to care for a child.
Savannah’s WTOC -TV reports that Larson calls some of the statements from the Hutchinson camp “misleading” and says that the Army gave her an additional 30 days to work out a plan when her initial child care arrangements fell through.
At the time of Hutchinson’s arrest, Kamani, was placed into custody overnight with a daycare provider on the post, Larson says.

Yup, you’re paying for full-time parents for single mothers in the military. It’s like paying double or triple for one largely useless soldierette.  Are Army cooks such a hot commodity that the military is willing to go through all of this?  This is the military, NOT Jean George or even Nobu.
It’s time to ban single mothers–and perhaps any mothers of kids younger than their teens–from the military. It clearly exacts more costs and bureaucratic BS than it’s worth. And it harms the kids even more than they’re already harmed without having a father in their lives.
There is no benefit to having single mothers in the U.S. armed forces. Period.
Posted via web from noahdavidsimon’s posterous