50

52 comments

What if you straight up don’t know - how are you supposed to prove that? What if it was a rape? What if it was a one night stand and you don’t know the guy’s last name? What if he ghosted so thoroughly that you couldn’t find his address, bank, car etc if your life depended on it?

I assume the point is to shame women in those situations for womaning wrong, but JFC, how is the screaming misogyny of this not obvious?

I assume the point is to shame women in those situations for womaning wrong, but JFC, how is the screaming misogyny of this not obvious?

The point is that the state doesn't want to pay if they can garnish the deadbeat father's wages. Its more about money than misogyny.

[–] BlackCirce [OP] 🔮🐖🐖🐖 19 points

Patriarchy is about money and misogyny and that’s our social organization. Men are given authority over women and children but that authority comes with financial responsibility. Men are willing usually to shoulder the responsibility in return for ownership of the goods (the woman and her children). But when the ownership benefit is eliminated by divorce, or without a marriage contract, men are not interested. They are in it for the power, not for love or some other emotional nonsense usually described as “taking care of your kids.” We tend to think of “your kids” as “children you fathered.” But your kids for men means “kids you own/have authority over.”

The fight about TANF is basically about cuckoldry: male tax payers feel like they are forced to pay for other men’s children and it’s unfair that this other group of men (deadbeats) get to live wild and free sowing their oats. So the state goes after “deadbeat” men on behalf of cuckolded men to recover their money.

Both groups of men, and the state blame women for this problem because it’s the woman’s intransigence in being a free agent that fucks up the whole male ownership system. She keeps insisting she’s a person and a mother at the same time, that she has the right to raise her children free of male violence and control, and she demands the community support her in this. What a witch!

The capital/economic solution is just as simple as the patriarchal solution. Under patriarchy men do everything they can to impede women from making a living that would support her and her children, to force her dependence on a male. Women with children are paid the least, and men with children are paid the most. Women with children should be paid enough that they can support themselves and their children. If she happens to be married to a male, that’s fine, and she will have autonomy to leave if he becomes problematic. She will be fine if the father becomes disabled, or loses his work, or if he dies. Then there will be no reason for agents of the state to interrogate mothers about the details of their sex lives, nor whip women for “bastardy.”

The patriarchy regulates women as a means of regulating men. Men's anger and violence are a threat to patriarchal institutions, so women (and children) are used to make men "settle down", "take responsibility", conform. As well as women being recruited as sexual pacifiers to decrease the disruptive threat of young, unattached men.

As a woman who pays my fair share of taxes, I have no interest in subsidizing a dead beat father abandoning his kids.

Ever heard of ‘disparate impact’? When men are as likely to be interrogated about their sexual pasts as women (including the child they conceived after being raped - oh wait, that doesn’t happen), then we can discuss if it’s not misogynistic.

The pretext might be money, but the effect is pure misogyny.

Not just that, but what if the woman doesn't want to name the father because she knows he will be a nightmare? Like a man who will continue to abuse and control her if he were to be named as the father and potentially have visitation / parental rights? The lack of concern for the wellbeing of the mother / child in this is astounding.

garnish the deadbeat father’s wages

This is what should be happening. Every. Single. Time.

I’m not saying this is the way to do it. But it is the end result we should go for.

Our money should not subsidize another man’s children. When he should be the one stepping up.

[–] ShieldMaiden 5 points Edited

Supporting taxpayer subsidy over mandated child support is just another way to support men leeching off of women. The single mothers/grandmothers in these families are often the breadwinners - they are literally paying taxes to subsidize themselves and their kids while many men pay nothing.

[–] ShieldMaiden 1 points Edited

Without going into too much about my job, I will disclose that I handle child support/welfare cases daily. These policies have nothing to do with misogyny and everything to do with holding fathers accountable for producing children and relieving the burden on single mothers and taxpayers (not least of whom are also single mothers). I’ve seen some shit you probably wouldn’t believe - I have literally seen cases where one man has fathered 20+ children with a dozen different women and that is just the tip of the child support iceberg - and it’s really not as simple or cut and dry as this article lets on. The child support system is very misunderstood.

Some answers:

If you honestly don’t know who the father is, he goes into the system as an unknown putative father and this does not affect welfare benefits.

There are policies in place to address cases where rape and assault are involved. A good cause determination should be completed. If there is evidence that a rape or violent assault occurred, the mother can elect not to pursue the biological father for support and the agency will close the child support case. In my experience, this rarely occurs - many women still want to pursue the biological father for support.

Location services are included when someone opens a child support case. Child support agencies have access to various federal databases that are not available to the general public, and they use these databases to locate noncustodial parents and to obtain wage and employment information. It’s not a foolproof system, but we locate a lot of people using these methods.

In the grand scheme of things, very few people are on TANF these days because TANF is such a racket. I work in one of the poorest states in the US and we have very few TANF cases with active support orders. Also, welfare benefits are only affected by child support that is actually collected and disbursed - if a noncustodial parent is ordered to pay support but the custodian is not actually receiving the money, the benefits are not affected. Effective child support enforcement lifts more children out of poverty than TANF ever could or ever will.

When we fail or refuse to hold men accountable for producing children, we prop up the patriarchy and women and children suffer. Men will continue to be “deadbeats” for as long as we will continue to allow it.

I don't know how you can say this has nothing to do with misogyny when you openly admit that there is an "evidence" process to determine whether a woman's claims of rape or violent assault warrant closing the case. There is nothing that is within a welfare agency's power that makes it reliable to determine this-- as we all know as feminists, many women struggle to name their rapists, admit they were raped, don't want to enrage a acquaintance or associate or fucking family member by naming him as a rapist, etc. and the majority of rapes either leave no concrete, recordable evidence or were not reported to any legal authority.

Welfare rules are also incredibly hard to understand as a layperson (I was able to understand Heidegger and Kant better than various rules for SSI when I was on it and I ended up spending almost a year trying to rectify a false overpayment notice because I failed to adhere to an income reporting requirement that existed in non-public documentation) and people may be motivated to either slightly fudge what they say or give a certain interpretation (still truthful) of events if they think it will make them qualify one way or another. Let's say you had a bunch of not-very-consensual sex with a few men over a span of a few months during a mental health crisis or you're in prostitution... do you tell the welfare people you were raped or not? Do you tell them you know who the father is or not (what if you're mostly sure, but not totally?) Do you name the guy you'll never see again and not the shady fucker who lives two doors down so you won't have to deal with the implications of welfare trying to get child support on your behalf from a shitbag who knows where you live? What if you think your rapist or shady dude will retaliate against you by asking for shared custody or visitation? What if the father is or might be your dad, or brother, or your mom's current boyfriend, or your sister's husband?

A welfare office or phone call with a welfare agent is probably one of the single LEAST comfortable places I can think of to dig through the details of a rape or assault, and there is no room for stories like Amberly Sanchez's where she fears a chain of repercussions for both herself/her kid and the father should she pursue welfare that has a child support requirement attached. The director in the article says outright this woman's experiences are not "legally valid" and unless you can prove domestic violence or a threat (which very few women who are abused or in precarious situations can) then you can't opt out.

There is no place in a civilized and female-respecting society for this process to depend on digging through a materially desperate and vulnerable woman's history and personal life or for support to be predicated on a woman being held responsible for hunting down a dude who is already fucked enough to irresponsibly create a kid and leave a woman with his mess (a.k.a. a dude who is unstable, manipulative, and potentially dangerous). If the state holds her responsible for giving over this information, the dude surely will as well. The system puts women in danger, period, and makes them responsible for things far outside their own life and taking care of their child-- a.k.a. whether Big Daddy State gets paid from Shitty Daddy. When these are the terms of societal support many women are going to choose to refuse support or choose to protect Shitty Daddy instead.

While I obviously don't support letting idiot men off the hook the problem is not that "men won't support their kids" (no fucking shit-- this is a subgoal of patriarchy) but that women are unable to provide for their children's material needs without the support of a man. That is a problem deliberately created and maintained by patriarchy-- men will submit to a general norm of having to pay for their kids only insofar as they can control a woman's life and reproduction through controlling the resources. No female control, no pay-- that's the deadbeat's bargain. The state collaborates with these bargains when a woman wants support but it demands control over her sexual and personal life.

There are many creative solutions to this that we could try to institute instead of this.... least efficient to extract money from men and maximally intrusive to women system. I mean for fuck's sake how much money is that guy who has 20+ children able to actually meaningfully provide?

[–] ShieldMaiden 0 points Edited

I don’t know how you can say that it does when you clearly have a very weak understanding of how the child support program works or who it services. But don’t feel bad, most people don’t understand it. The child support program exists to hold noncustodial parents (men and women) accountable for the support of their children — it does not exist to serve men in any way, shape, or form, and you would be hard pressed to find a man who believes he has benefited from this program.

Let me ask you this: Is it ethical for a mother to deprive her child of financial support from the father in order to protect the father and/or preserve a relationship with the father? Because that’s what the posted article seems to support, and if that isn’t something that benefits men in the long run, I don’t fucking know what is. Usually this means allowing the father to provide less support than would be legally required, and to do provide financial support and/or in-person childcare sporadically when he feels like it rather than consistently on a court ordered schedule. Mom is still responsible for the majority of financial support and childcare in these instances. And once the father finds a new girlfriend and has a new baby, his voluntarily contributions will end anyway, 9 times out of 10.

The child support program benefits a lot of children, and in the vast majority of those cases, TANF is not involved at all and therefore the state is not keeping any of the child support obligation whatsoever. Even in TANF cases, the state doesn’t necessarily keep all of it.

Contrary to popular belief (apparently), not every man involved in the child support program is a deadbeat abuser/rapist who spends every waking moment trying to hunt down his ex and kids. In fact, many of these men couldn’t give two fucks about ever seeing their kids. Many of them aren’t deadbeats at all, and even if they are deadbeats, they have legal rights as parents regardless of whether they regularly pay child support. And of the ones that are abusers or rapists, the mother generally wants him to stay on the hook for financial support if nothing else. Rarely will a mother ask for a case to close for good cause, and the good cause determination option is provided to every person interviewed. These claims are taken very seriously even if there is no protection order or criminal conviction, but if the mother still wants to proceed (which she usually does), we go forward.

And for every man with 21 kids there is a woman who has shoved her existing 5 kids off onto every relative and family friend imaginable because she can’t care for them herself (or doesn’t want to), but for whatever reason will still get pregnant repeatedly and continue to bring kids into the world for someone else to take care of. I would honestly rather deal with a baby daddy with 21 kids than an incubator who thinks she shouldn’t have to pay any child support because that’s a man’s job (I legit hear this excuse regularly). And believe me, plenty of those ladies exist. I could probably throw a rock from the front door of my office and hit half a dozen of them.

I say this as someone who receives child support myself and lived off welfare for the better part of a decade. If you are living off of every government benefit available to you - food stamps, Medicaid, subsidized housing, daycare assistance, whatever - that’s fine, and we want you to continue benefiting from those programs if you or your children need them, but a little quid pro quo is to be expected.

The stigma around the sexual choices of single moms remains pervasive at the welfare office, said Georgette Cooke, who said she doesn’t know who the father of her child is. “Look, it was a one-night stand. I didn’t know I would get pregnant,” she said. “But I’m still the one who has to support my child.”

She said the state cut off all of her assistance — money she was using for diapers and wipes — for not cooperating with officials in their attempts to name the father.

McCracken, the child support director, said that not knowing the identity of the dad is not a good-cause reason for not cooperating with child support, though as long as the mom keeps communicating with child support agents while they search for him, they may stop requiring her participation after six months or a year if he cannot be found.

You don't get any assistance.

You're supposed to help the government play detective for 6 months to a year. And then they might just give up and give it to you, but probably not.

That isn't accurate. Getting benefits is conditioned on cooperation during the process. Women don't have to wait for benefits while they state tries to find the father.

[–] ShieldMaiden 2 points Edited

I can confirm that this isn’t accurate. For one, welfare benefits are divided up between household members and the parent receives a portion while another portion is reserved for the children. The children's welfare benefits are NEVER cut off for ANY reason so long as they remain eligible for those benefits. The adult's portion may be cut off so that the full amount received is reduced until they get back into cooperation with the agency. And there are many reasons that an agency may deem a custodial parent to be non-cooperative that do not involve the non-custodial parent at all.

We need to support women in making better choices about contraception and who they have children with. Why are women sleeping with these POS men? I don't know what the answer is, but I'm tired of society picking up the slack for these man babies, who face no consequences for having children. How many of these guys have multiple kids they aren't caring for? Why should they wear a condom and loose any bit of pleasure when they can walk away and we're on the hook? They're so worthless that the mothers would rather be poor than have to parent with them. How do we get women to see that they deserve better than this, and a good vibrator is better than the useless man attached to a dick.

[–] ShieldMaiden 2 points Edited

A lot of women have access to contraception but choose not to use it. I know it’s hard to believe, but it happens A LOT. When you have lived in poverty since birth with subpar access to quality education or employment opportunities, having children is suddenly a very appealing “job prospect” that many people believe will bring them joy and a sense of fulfillment in a world that is often devoid of either. And children do bring joy and fulfillment for a lot of people.

As a single mom this makes my blood boil. I bet fathers aren't interrogated about any children they have an obligation to support. And forcing a mom to choose between risking increased violence by naming a father or feeding her children sounds exactly like the status quo. The family court system is anti-mother, one that in practice uses the "best interest of the abuser" standard. It's disgusting. I could rage write a novel on this bullshit.

It’s a catch 22 of “works better for the father”. If a father is named, he has more power to do harm. Most mothers aren’t hoping to keep nice helpful fathers away from the kids FFS. It’s not like we’re rolling in it on welfare.

But if the state just picks up the tab he can walk without paying a dime. And single mothers will continue to be resented.

What it would take to resolve this problem (properly dealing with abuse and raising boys properly) no one wants to do

Gov is not good with nuance. Or going back to tweak poorly written laws that have serious unintended consequences and don't really benefit citizens in the best, most efficient way.

I have trouble deciding which side I'm on with this issue. Men should be on the hook for paying for kids they created, and we're creating more issues by turning government into everyone's benefactor. But women should not be penalized if they don't know or want to say who and where their former partners are.

Should society pay for other people's poor choices or bad luck? It could be argued that we've enabled these situations, from both a right & left perspective, so maybe we should. But how, and how much? Blindly throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it. But being miserly doesn't either. I really don't know. It is tremendously screwed up.

Should society pay for other people's poor choices or bad luck?

Where does this logic end? I bet if you have kids, you'll never ask yourself "should I have to pay for their poor choices or bad luck?" No, you will care for your children and help them when they need you, even if they do something stupid.

It just seems extra bizarre to me when the "other people's poor choices" we are talking about are actual people. Small children who didn't choose to be born to the parents they have who need support. Should society care for people who need it? Yes I think so.

Something tells me if we lived in a matriarchy I would never hear women saying stuff like this.

Spoiler alert: There are also plenty of “deadbeat” moms out there, and I doubt a matriarchy would solve that problem.

I was being rhetorical. Maybe that’s out of vogue these days, but it is useful.

[–] ShieldMaiden 1 points Edited

Don’t worry, no one in this thread has any clue what they are talking about. The child support program is not inherently misogynistic, and really it’s not even about mothers or fathers - it’s about the best interests of children, not their parents.

Ask any man who pays child support how the child support program has benefited him. You won’t get many positive responses.

Should society pay for other people's poor choices or bad luck?

We already do. Hospitals treat smokers, obese people, and people who have gotten into accidents by choice. We don't withhold medical care because they made a poor choice or did it to themselves. We also subsidize these costs already.

But for some reason that compassion and logic flies out the window when it comes to single mothers.

A logically consistent stance would be to charge smokers and obese people more money at the hospital and not let taxpayers cover their bills. Or alternatively, we could stop going after single mothers and just give them the money because we understand they need it.

We do charge smokers and obese people more, through insurance companies.

By "we" do you mean Americans? I hate to break it to you, but no one is looking at your healthcare system and thinking you are doing it right.

That was a rhetorical question. As I said, I don’t know the answer. It’s complicated. One thing I do know, is that in order to arrive at reasonable solutions, we have to ask and get answers to uncomfortable questions.