“Trump’s election stole my desire to look for a partner” is an interesting Washington Post article.
The author describes herself as having had “[e]nough of this dating unavailable men a half-decade younger than me”. Let’s assume that “dating” translates to “having sex.” The young cougar is now “ready to look for a partner” who is “an equal” (i.e., same age or older?). She has “two children and our needy dog.” She says she has “no idea what a supportive partner would even look like”.
She says that “on [her] own” she “can support [her] family.” This is fortunate because since she apparently has no “partner” of any kind, Perhaps her husband died and she and the kids were left without life insurance? But then who babysits the kids while she is having sex with these “half-decade younger” men?
I found the author, Stephanie Land, on Facebook. Here’s a May 8 posting:
It seems that she is a big Sheryl Sandberg fan. Also, though she has no “partner,” she is cashing child support checks on a regular basis. Perhaps due to an imperfect understanding of Montana family law, which does provide for potentially unlimited child support profits, Ms. Land says that she is struggling financially despite receiving these checks from a non-partner. Could it be that the father of these kids, when he is not writing checks to Ms. Land, is also caring for them every other weekend, thus facilitating the dates with younger men? Why doesn’t he then qualify as at least a financial partner in Ms. Land’s journey of single motherhood?
[Actually perhaps there are two different fathers for the two kids (generally the best financial strategy)? One of the cashflow-positive kids is 9 and one is 2. The author says “I’ve been on my own with my kids for most of the past decade”. Was she actually “on [her] own” when the 2-year-old was conceived?]
Now that Americans have elected someone other than Sheryl Sandberg to occupy the White House (Sheryl for 2020?), what’s left for this mom?
I’ve lost the desire to attempt the courtship phase. The future is uncertain. I am not the optimistic person I was on the morning of Nov. 8, wearing a T-shirt with “Nasty Woman” written inside a red heart. It makes me want to cry thinking of that. Of seeing my oldest in the shirt I bought her in Washington, D.C., that says “Future President.”
There is no room for dating in this place of grief. Dating means hope. I’ve lost that hope in seeing the words “President-elect Trump.”
On Facebook she says that she will be at a conference in Washington, D.C. on December 12 (“How Progressives Can Defend the Working Class in the Trump Era”). In case she does meet a higher-income “date” there among the “progressives”, her May 8th financial woes might dissipate (see Real World Divorce for the variation in potential child support profits among D.C., Maryland, and Virginia).
Many people seem to have substituted a political identity for a religious one, and as such, this recent loss has come to be a crisis of faith, akin to the Millerite “Great Disappointment” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Disappointment; overnight their heaven has turned into hell, so it’s no wonder they don’t want to procreate.
Don’t feel too bad, she’s going to get her regular annual windfall when she files her federal income tax and reaps the benefit of the EITC for about $3K.
And, yes, children 7 years apart in age strongly indicates two different fathers. And she didn’t even make it two years post-birth with the father of her second child. She must be a joy to be around.
Her site: https://stepville.com/
Yes she has some claims that seem to contradict themselves.
She says she is strong enough to carry the family herself – but admits to being on food stamps in other articles she wrote.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/-stephanie-land/youre-a-good-mom-my-8year_b_9151652.html
“We live next to this ritzy hippie store, full of organic produce, but they also have baked goods that we can purchase with food stamps if we ever need a treat and can’t afford one. “
Montana’s minimum wage is about eight bucks an hour, so she makes 30k, give or take (it’s not clear how much of that 30k is the child support, though). With 2 kids, she is a long way from not maxing out EITC. (Have to make over 45k with two kids to be ineligible).
If she really wants to find a partner who is an equal she could have sex with (or preferably marry, to have the full paycheck use) a software developer (median income 90k/year). Not as rich as a lobbyist (median income something like 400k/year), but there’s way more software developer fish in the sea who would not mind a woman with two kids.
“She holds a bachelor’s degree in English with a Creative Writing emphasis…”
Not the first of many mistakes I suspect.
Perhaps she should’ve chosen a different major if she ever expected to support herself, much less kids. With or without an ex-husband kicking in.
Well, to her credit she actually has a job.
she is cray cray!
> “the is NO support system for that. There is no support system for getting ahead, getting ahead, moving up the ladder.
Um, there is. Its called “marriage”. You act like not a cunt, combine your resources with a mate and raise your own fucking children together while not expecting other people to pay for your diapers and daycare.
Why sexual desire is objectifying – and hence morally wrong,
by Raja Halwani, professor of philosophy at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago:
https://aeon.co/ideas/why-sexual-desire-is-objectifying-and-hence-morally-wrong
It’s really, really easy for those of us who were born with a natural aptitude for skills which have turned out to be aberrantly valuable to pass judgement on those who were not.
“She should have chosen a more highly compensated major”: ok, but perhaps she had reason to expect that financial independence and single motherhood was not going to be her path. And what if every English lit major switched to engineering? How awful would that be?
“She shouldn’t have had kids without a partner”: ok, but wtf? Seriously. It’s popular here to talk about money grubbing litigious exploitative women, but rare to acknowledge that guys are absolute assholes sometimes. Maybe she believed two guys in her life, seven years apart, and loves her kids regardless of their genetic origin.
What you really want is for her to not complain that the choices she made with incomplete information turned out not-awesome. Actually, no. What you want is for her to not be female, a single parent, a writer, and struggling. If she has to be those things which are so repugnant to you, she should at least keep quiet about it, right?
Andrew: “natural aptitude”? Who is born with a natural aptitude for a typical modern job? I remember an ugly approach I did into Toronto, after the controller asked us to switch runways just a few miles out. When I had finished working the thrust levers and we were turning onto a taxiway the captain looked at me, a month out of training, and said “Well, nobody was born knowing how to fly a 53,000 lb. jet.”
Andrew:
“If she has to be those things which are so repugnant to you, she should at least keep quiet about it, right?”
This fairly accurately describe my position.
But seriously though, she is complaining about the martyrdom of single parenthood with no support whatsoever (aside from spousal and government support, which doesn’t count). All the while claiming strength and independence.
I think what annoys people is her inability to sense irony.
Very often, when you make poor choices you get poor consequences, being “female, a single parent, a writer, and struggling.” has got nothing to do with it. I’m not actually sure what point you are trying to make. Should we celebrate poor decision making? Or is it that we need to be nicer and kinder to the poor victim in this tiny corner of the internet that she will never be exposed to?
@Andrew:
here is a comment I found on another article she wrote: http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/please-dont-feed-the-animals/Content?oid=2506279
” I also think she’s right that, as a single mother of two struggling to make ends meet she should have access to welfare. That food stamps are a great and important resource for people in need and that we should fight for it is not at all the question, in my view at least.
What is actually objectionable to me is precisely what Dafax’s comment points out, which is that the writer hasn’t found herself at the convergence of unfortunate circumstances in great part out of her control like a lot of people who need food stamps are. What really is objectionable to me is the posturing, the appropriating of a narrative that isn’t really hers and that I’ve seen her do in other articles, wallowing in her own story, making it other than what it is, telling stories about the story, stretching it out so she can become a spokesperson of sort for a cause that is worth fighting but that is not quite her personal plight, as she argues in almost every piece she writes. She wasn’t born in Montana or in a state with little opportunities and economic possibilities. She wasn’t a teenager who didn’t know better and had kids she couldn’t really support. She consciously chose to move to a state where it is notoriously difficult to find a job with the goal of becoming a writer, of all goals. She chose to have unprotected sex with someone who is now out of the picture and now has 2 children to support while trying to make money as a writer. She wasn’t 21 but in her 30s. She chose to move to a state knowing full well it would be hard to make a living. I personally moved away because working 2 jobs I still needed food stamps to make it there. So I know. It’s not that she is a single mom with two kids who needs help. She should get help without being judged for her choices. She should be allowed to go become a writer if she wants to, even though I think that once children are involved it’s always more than about oneself and one’s dreams and desires. God knows we all make crappy choices in our lives and have to deal with the consequences.
It’s more that she is capitalizing, maybe not yet in money, but in other things – like people’s approval/compassion/attention/what have you – on turning herself into a victim, on co-opting a narrative that isn’t quite hers, because, like Dafax points out, she made a series of very conscious decisions (that are NOTHING like randomly breaking a tooth on that piece of rock that’s found its way into her trail mix). The whole piece is about her determination and choices to, in a way, wallow in poverty. While I don’t think it’s any of our business how she leads her life, and I am not judging her for it – even though it sounds like am – she IS choosing to make it very public, but more than that, she is presenting it in a way that I find unethical and really problematic. Her writing at once presents her life as being self-determined and a series of purposeful choices while claiming the right to be looked at as a victim of circumstances, of the system. That’s not quite how it works and I’m sorry so many people are buying into it.
So Stephanie Land, good on you for fighting for the poor and helpless. Shame on you for passing yourself as one.”
Some Americans decry income inequality. The claim is that we’re a nation of rich and poor with hardly anyone left in the middle. This article suggests that maybe it is because the media doesn’t bother to report on what happens to Americans in the middle.
There is plenty of interest in the rich and successful. Sheryl Sandberg can get an article published in the Washington Post any day that she chooses, for example. Hollywood stars are quoted in the media and by Facebookers for their political wisdom (Hillary good; Donald Trump bad!). What about Ms. Land, though? She seems to have gotten published primarily because she claims to be poor and struggling. Perhaps due to a heartless government that subsidizes housing, food, health care, and education, but not automobiles, Ms. Land is not blessed with a late-model Camry (or Subaru for the true progressive?). In the Post piece she talks about a jalopy whose radiator cracks and for which a regular mechanic is standing by.
Suppose that Ms. Land had sex with a physician’s assistant to produce the current 9-year-old child and that she had sex with a married dermatologist to produce the current 2-year-old. She’d have an after-tax spending power of maybe $100,000/year from the child support alone. That’s above median household income, but not far enough above to make her rich. With the same spending power as someone who earns $180k/year pre-tax, would newspapers care to run the stories of her struggles to get through diurnal life challenges? Would Ms. Land have been invited to that conference of “progressives” in D.C. if she were banking enough child support revenue and/or author’s royalties to live in a McMansion (but not enough for an actual mansion!), shop at Whole Paycheck (Whole Child Support Check?), and drive a new BMW SUV?
Alternative formulation: A lot of people buy new Honda Accords, but we seldom see a newspaper article by or about people whom we could imagine buying a new Honda Accord.
@philg: I was referring to the natural aptitude for skills with aberrant rewards which most of your readers possess: in today’s economy, that’s numeracy, precision, focus, and a enjoyment of same. Average Americans have these skills in average quantities. Most of us here have extra. The market rewards us aberrantly.
From our perspective, it is very easy to criticize others decisions. If we ever stumbled, we had reserves of marketable aptitudes to draw on. We can afford to fail repeatedly. We might spend a year or so replenshing life essentials at an above average job before we can try again. Easy mode. Often we have socked away literal reserves from investments or an exit when times we’re good. We can do that.
Single parenthood with no reserves is no joke. You suck it up, get an average job, keep the average job at all costs (critically for health insurance previously, and probably soon again). There is little opportunity for bad decisions, error or failure.
No one said life is fair. Some people will fail and suffer for it. The writer in question is lucky to have the financial support that she does have. All of this is true. And she acknowledges that. But she’s a writer, so she writes about the things in her life. And her situation is difficult, demeaning, unrewarding, sometimes nonsensical. What then is the proper tone and narrative for her writings?
I understand that she presents a “woe is me” story, but she’s not starving in the woods being chased by wolves while fighting off the bubonic plague. The baseline for poverty in America is ludicrously high (only *one* TV? An Android instead of an iPhone?).
But it’s embarrassing for us to sit here and make fun of the poor little girl who has problems we don’t have
Sorry, missed the touchscreen target and posted prematurely.
…But it’s embarrassing for us to sit here and make fun of the poor little girl, who has problems we don’t have, and wishes she didn’t. We don’t know anything about her life and it’s a horrible failure of empathy to assume that it’s all her fault. To promulgate some stereotypes: writers write, women kvetch, humans perceive the world as a parade of comparisons. So she did. Why do we have to criticize her for that?
You think she’d be insufferable in real life. You might be right. But she’s not emblematic of any great horror inflicted upon the world. There are much better candidates for that abuse. I just don’t get the value in calling this woman out for being so damn ordinary.
@dingus: my point is that we are not so high and mighty. The paths we here have taken are just not open to most people. And for the Horatio Algers in the crowd, surely you have to realize that a) there’s a big component of luck in addition to relentless hard work, and b) there is no economic model that could support the success of *every* striver.
It might make us uncomfortable to realize that people with average skills live such a precarious life. That precariousness is the normal state of US life, and it’s astonishingly far advanced over most of the rest of the world, and over any period in history. But that’s not the comparison she or anyone else is making. Just like you don’t compare your BMW to a 1970s Lada, but to the new McLaren in the garage down the street. (Forgive me for abusing the 2nd person singular there).
The irony you are missing is that when “we” define strength and independence only in financial terms…which happens to be our strongest game…of course comments from the plebs look ridiculous. But it’s insulting to assume that “winning” this area is the path to holiness (or even happiness), or the one true path of life. Some people make a lot of money and wish they were better golfers. Others choose (or are chosen by) different paths, and wish they had more money. What’s so hard to understand about that?
This normalization of “punching down” is so damaging. Not trying to make a political statement.
She’s not ordinary, that’s the point. She’s got a platform and a soapbox. She is not the ordinary struggling single mother by a long shot. She is savvy enough to work the angles to get such major exposure in media outlets, she is savvy enough to do other, demonstrably effective solutions to maximize her income. Most women with her savvy marry first or have sex and then children with guys with bigger bank accounts than the one(s) she chose.
I just don’t get the value in vociferously defending someone who is clearly comfortable in terms of basics along with her kids and has enough ready money to cover herself in ink, because those guys aren’t big on credit and her visible artwork alone costs at least two EITC checks, maybe three.
Anyway Andrew, I’m a housewife married to a high earner. I didn’t do anything different than any woman could have done thirty or fifty or 150 years ago. So, no, “we” don’t all have the skills you seem to think “we” do, who comment here.
There’s no punching down going on. She’s the one who can snap her fingers and get millions to read her whining. That’s power, regardless of income.
@GermanL: You make very good points, but I’d also present another angle on a couple of them:
First, she is a *writer*. That’s obviously a terrible career choice. But it’s what she does at a level of competence adequate to extract some revenue out of the economy. It might not pay better than shift supervisor at Hardee’s, but hope springs eternal. Writers come in all shapes and sizes, but many of them are drawn to writing for its…well, we’d call it “flexibility” but to them it’s more like “non-suffocatingness”. This reflects a preference, but possibly more than that. We don’t believe that all people can become airline pilots, so why do we believe that all people can hold a steady repetitive work job without honestly suffering? Call it “basic life skills” if you like, but we’re lucky to be able to see it that way.
So, thus established that writing is what she must do with her time: is she not allowed to write about her life, chosen or otherwise? Is she not allowed to speak for the people around her (or whom she finds interesting) that perhaps lack even her literacy? You have accused her of being in some kind of poseur poverty, which might be true. But aside from being something we’d never choose for ourselves, what is wrong with that? And who *is* entitled to speak from that perspective, if not her? Would they be any more palatable, or effective? We hire lobbyists and marketing agencies, how is that different?
Also: the economy in that part of the country is really tough. But COL is low too. Montana might be her very shrewd choice of place to live while she hustles for writing gigs across the English speaking world. It would scare the crap out of me, especially as the sole provider with kids. She might have little choice but to live with that fear every day. And maybe that’s what she writes about.
We don’t know. Phil did a bit of unfair mocking, I think, and it’s like red meat to some people around here. I know I’m not going to change anyone’s mind, and I’m not even trying to defend the woman. Just, you know, hoping for a little restraint, if not kindness. The time for that might be past. Build the wall already. Just put it in the right place.
@Practical: oh, I laughed.
OK, she is not ordinary. Perhaps that was poorly phrased. Anyone who has your attention is by definition not ordinary. But she has ordinary people problems. And maybe that’s a fate she could have avoided if only she had sex with better specimens of the semen producing team.
So, if you had her life to live, you’d have married well, then? Found a real “catch” and gone steady and worn his ring and made sure his pot roast was ready when he got home, and overlooked his indiscretions when necessary and….well, what?
When’s the last time you got married? Those people don’t exist any more. Even if they did, society suggests that women look for something else these days. Call it failure of feminism, and note how much smarter you are than them, but don’t deny that they exist.
This is really my point: these people *exist*, even if we think they are unworthy. There are valid life choices and circumstances that take some people to these places. Society is a descriptive thing, and no amount of prescriptiveness will change that.
Some of us are weebles that wobble and don’t fall down. Some of us had sex with the right people. Some of us are just lucky.
But some of us are none of those things. If this writer is not the person to talk about the lives of the those people, who is? “No one, it’s just too yucky” is the default answer. And even valid in some cases — none of us are prepared to take on all the yuckiness that exists. But we do dishonor to ourselves by being dismissive. And there, but for the grace of god, go I. Et cetera.
Thank you Andrew for the different perspective. I agree that we sometimes are too harsh on others for their choices in life.
We come to philg’s blog since it is a regular dose of scrutiny over the absurdity in life which we see around us. And we like to pick apart and lament over 🙂
I feel sorry for her children. End of story.
She’s an idiot. End of story.
I think it is interesting that Andrew thinks that this woman got a Bachelor’s in English and became a paid-by-the-government and paid-by-the-defendants parent (also freelance writer) because she wasn’t born with special genetic capabilities that would have enabled her to spend the four years and tuition dollars to become, e.g., a car mechanic, an airplane mechanic, a carpenter, an electrician, a plumber, a unionized government worker of some kind (firefighter, police officer, school teacher, etc.), a medical technician. When Andrew goes to hire a plumber does he pay substantially less than the $38/hour that the BLS says a computer programmer earns (see http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-programmers.htm )? If so, will he please share this plumber’s contact information with me?
[And if Andrew is right, will 23andme be able to find the genes that give humans a special aptitude for working as a laser hair removal technician? Is that a different gene than what enables a person to run an MRI machine or become a dental hygienist ($35/year according to BLS)? I wonder if the conferencing progressives in D.C. who are concerned with the working class would want an immigrant dental hygienist to show up and talk about arriving in the U.S. with no English and working up to a $72,330/year job?]
Andrew, my “catch” doesn’t expect pot roast, doesn’t have wandering eyes, and supports me being a SAHM (of multiple children) with household help. Also didn’t marry out of high school either, lol. I am under 40, as I believe the woman we’re all talking about is. People complain in every era about not being rich doing some hobby. Writing is her hobby, she had a lot of ways to go that would have allowed her to enjoy her hobby, have children and not spend time on food stamps. And yeah, phil’s post at #24 lists some of those other options.
Andrew – “so why do we believe that all people can hold a steady repetitive work job without honestly suffering?” Really? Is this similar to the suffering when people have to go more than 15 minutes without a smartphone interaction? “So, thus established that writing is what she must do with her time” – no, it is not thus established, any more than it is established that a significant portion of the young male population must play X-Box with their time.
From what little I have read here, she reeks of an external locus of control, which is an outlook that is likely contrary to most followers of this blog, myself included.
Her daughters likely have fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers – any one of whom may be able to raise those girls without the benefit of taxpayer assistance. If she is on Medicaid and “support” then the birth fathers have been tapped for child support – their W-2 paycheck is garnished and the money goes automatically to the state, not her. She moved out of state from the first father – so he likely cannot be anything more than an occasional visitor, if he even knows where his daughter lives. The second pregnancy occurred when she was at school, so that father and his parents are likely local and perhaps should be raising the child instead of her, while she pursues her dream of impoverished writer, work (?for cash – who here has a W-2 housecleaner or sends them a 1099?), and post adolescent student. Many women, raising children alone, pick secure boring steady jobs with large stable employers with benefits and stay put until retirement. Why is she entitled to pursue a taxpayer subsidized dream. Her writing isn’t even that compelling or insightful to read- just a drab description of everyday in line at the supermarket. She’s no Shakespeare.
@anonymous She says on Facebook that she is getting pussy profit (“child support”) to spend.
@Andrew “Single parenthood with no reserves is no joke.” Monthly checks from the dads and taxpayers aren’t “reserves”?
You are right. Those payments are annuity payments. Safer than any job.
@Phil, I do all of my own plumbing, for what it’s worth. It’s terribly cost-inefficient, but unpaid work is good for the soul.
@Practical, so, my wife is in the same position as you. She hasn’t worked since we married over a decade ago. That makes me the “catch” I guess, but realistically, our lifestyles are not common. And searching for a similar arrangement is terrible advice for women. My wife is super smart and capable, but where would she be if I decided to leave her with the kids and run off with the band? She’d be a single parent out of the workforce for a long time. We have no debt, and adequate savings — but if were in a more common situation, and she needed to maintain a mortgage and car loan and child care and etc on a mediocre job, she’d have a really tough time. I don’t have daughters, but if I did, “find a nice guy and marry him” would not be my economic advice, any more than “become a professional basketball player” is for my boys.
These arguments all seem to boil down to: “people would be more tolerable if only they were more like me”, and I guess I can only agree with that. But there are also good people who are nothing like you, and some of them are economically uncompetitive. They already suffer for that, and don’t need our derision to make some kind of tenuous point.
At some point, snarky superiority stops being fun and starts being self-debasing. Your might not always see the line from altitude.
I actively promote other women having the ability to be SAHMs with household help, Andrew. I don’t throw my hands in the air and declare it impossible or absurd, nor would I be silly enough to present it as the only economic option out there for a woman.
But when 40% of women SAHM during their marriages, of the marriages that produce kids (most of them), it’s hardly a rare or obscure thing.
This woman is clearly far from starving and gets child support and government funds. She isn’t really a great example of the system failing to provide welfare for a single mom or an example of a single mom “having a tough time”. Your vociferous defense of her is keeping the thread hilarious though.
@Practical, I dispute your 40% number, outside of the preschool years.
Further, I’m really not defending this woman. I don’t know any more about her than you or the (mature, well-spoken, self-assured) person who called her a “cunt” do.
I agree with Sam that she presents an external locus of control, and I agree that that is a) offensive, and b) self-destructive. I agree with GermanL that she is parlaying that victim mentality into personal brand, possibly for (as yet unrealized) personal gain. All of this is objectionable.
But that’s not what the original post was about, and it’s not where the hostile brigade of early commenters took it.
We can agree that from a qualitative and strategic perspective, this woman’s approach to life, as we understand it, is not going to succeed (unless it does! And then we’d dislike her even more!). But picking her apart like this says worse things about us (uncharitable, superior, dismissing, ignorant) than it does about her (ignorant, uncompetitive, low-skill).
Again, those people *exist*. Even if she is only a poseur poverty tourist, it’s a real problem for real people. Our lives are already so much better than theirs, what do we gain except some sort of imaginary insulating distance by mocking them?
And what if we ever stumble? A tragic accident, or wrenching divorce, or suffer some kind of mental crisis? Where for a period — short or long, or merely long *enough*, we are similarly reduced in faculties and control? Are we, then, as unworthy as them?
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/04/08/after-decades-of-decline-a-rise-in-stay-at-home-mothers/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/08/7-key-findings-about-stay-at-home-moms/
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/14/upshot/us-employment-women-not-working.html
@Andrew:
I take your point to some extent. I agree it is both easy and temping to dogpile on an individual with only human judgement and regrets in their life. I also think there is distinction between that and a person who makes willful choices to put themselves in a certain position and then, furthermore, engages in deliberate intellectual dishonesty in order to milk sympathy and writing material.
It is both proper and good to show compassion and sympathy in the former case, to do so in the latter is to enable either dishonesty or mental illness.
I very much believe your calls for kindness are well intentioned, but they strike me as misplaced. It is wasted on a person who’s hoping to turn complaining into a profession.
The best thing about being sympathetic toward people like the author is that one can feel superior. She is at home watching TV, napping, and surfing the web while taxpayers fund her 9-year-old’s school and the 2-year-old’s day care (“preschool”)? That’s because she isn’t smart enough to work 60 hours/week like you do. You have great genes, which is why you’re childless and in a cubicle. She has bad genes, which is why she is cashing the child support and welfare checks.
I was just down in D.C. and a married woman with a full-time job (her husband also works full time) told me how happy she is that a low-level support person in her government agency is able to get a subsidized house around the corner from the office. “She has 6 kids and would have to spend a lot of time commuting if she didn’t get public housing.” The married woman and her husband had longer commutes and, in order to avoid a move to the exurbs, had limited their fertility to 1 child. She enjoyed feeling superior to a woman who works shorter hours, commutes fewer hours, and has more kids.
@Phil
Wow, that’s super dark. I wonder if there’s some german word for laughing and feeling sad at the same time. Like “schadenfreude,” but self directed.
So a local strong and independent single mother is the community paying off the indulgence for the sin of their own failed biological imperative? At least the race marches on I guess…
Dingus: As soon as I get my OxyContin prescription refilled I will be Mr. Sunshine again 🙂
PhilG coming through again! Andrew, my life isn’t better than the woman we’re all commenting about. I certainly can’t get the washington post or any other major news outlet to promote my views and beliefs, which don’t revolve around how Trump’s election is bad for me (it’s pretty awesome for me actually even if I might have to pay a little more tax, which is possible). She can, so again, how is she really representative of “real people with real problems”? If they have real problems, they can’t get a major media outlet to promote their views and beliefs.
I have real problems. When I offer to pay a woman over college age for child care, I tend to get refused despite offering double the federal minimum wage or more plus vacation and sick days. I have no trouble hiring teenagers and early-college aged women, though. Perhaps it’s because I can’t compete with child support checks among the older set? Anyway, it’s a real problem, and if you want to sympathize with me, that would be super!
@Phil, you’re absolutely right that sympathy toward perceived lessers is in vogue among liberals, rather like false charity in a church.
If that’s the impression I’m giving, then I’m failing to communicate fully. Yes, recognize that when we measure the world with our yardstick, some people won’t match up to those standards.
But much more importantly: recognize that our yardstick is not relevant in all contexts. You can talk about western capitalist democracy productivity that put men on the moon, and be correct all day long. But you can’t argue that every person born into that culture must subscribe to the same exaltations, or be suited for advancing them.
It’s just so easy to sit on our perch where “things I am good at” and “things society rewards” intersect so conveniently. Different people are not there. Some further than others.
No children or their mothers should starve. It’s bad for them, and it’s bad for society. Food stamps are 110% OK with me. Biological parents must take responsibility for their offspring, even if it is only financial. This gets complicated and personal, and I know you’re invested in the absurdity business, but as an overarching policy, it is reasonable. The details are not always so.
No one is arguing that the situation is good, only that the alternatives are worse.
@Practical: we have very different definitions of the word “problem”. I think the phrase you’re looking for is “barely perceptible inconvenience”. Still, you have my deepest sympathies.
@Practical: now, see, I’m doing it too. Being flip and superficial and dismissive was easy and fun, but that’s exactly what I found so objectionable about the original commentary here.
As I walked away, I realized that what I dislike about your most recent comment is that you are taking the headline excesses and extrapolating them out to believe that you are affected by them in any way.
No, there is effectively zero chance that child support payments from estranged fathers are materially influencing the market for inexpensive experienced child care services.
There is effectively zero risk that immigration, legal or illegal, will increase your chances of being raped by a bad hombre.
There is effectively zero chance that you will be murdered by walking down the street in Chicago.
But if I wanted to get you riled up, I would exploit your human inability to grasp statistics to sell you a disaster story and then sell you the solution — naturally I alone can solve these imaginary problems.
Lazy shallow comprehension and easy fake answers. I realize your comment was just throwaway, and you’re probably smarter than that. So I apologize for responding in kind.
Double the minimum wage is not inexpensive for child care services. The average child care worker receives less than I pay my child care workers. But perhaps it isn’t less if they believe they can rely upon other sources of income, like child support checks. This is a great thread. Woman with irrational views about Trump who complains about difficulty paying for child care and dating, among many other things– your sympathy overflows. I have trouble with securing care due to market failure and alas, I cannot receive your glorious sympathies.
As it turns out, I’m not being entirely abstract. PhilG will be unsurprised to learn that many women receiving child support checks are happy to supply child care to single mothers such as the lady who wrote our original discussion-article at bargain basement rates. They consider themselves helping out a fellow single mother to stretch her own child support checks. But married mothers are not allowed access to this market of cheap child care, sadly.
An anonymous guide to hiring a housekeeper or a nanny in Chinatown:
(i) have you checked the Chinatown in the closest metro? if not why not? if so, did you realize that the Chinese labor agencies charge workers rather than employees? if it’s **not** your first time, offer to pay the fee yourself (even if you are a native Chinese speaker: just say so in English);
(ii) Chinese labor agencies advertise in Chinese-language newspapers: Google Translate is your friend. If you have Chinese neighbors or colleagues, ask for their help and recommendations: it’s well worth it;
(iii) recognize that prospective employees might speak bad English: get ready to forgive them for minor blunders; always make sure that your facial expression is inoffensive (feeling surprised? NO RAISED BROWS! that would be a sign of indignation in East Asia). Always ask, never stop communicating;
(iv) you can pay a nominal minimal wage (cash only please! and get ready to eat up whatever fees and taxes there are) as long as you agree to a 300% cash bonus on the major Chinese holidays (no excuses: google to find out what those 2-3 annual holidays are);
(v) in fact, you’d better keep it this way: tell your nanny nothing and make sure that she learns to expect a bonus on a regular basis (she will if you are not an a**hole and she’s done alright–that’s your feedback loop);
(vi) random gifts, sweets, good tea, or other small tokens of appreciation do wonders: so much better than a praise delivered in a fluent Chinese (the praise won’t hurt either, if it’s an addition)
(vii) want her to always take an initiative? just say so! carrots work way better than sticks; despite what others say, most Asian nannies are willing to take the initiative: just let them know you expect and appreciate that!
(viii) small perks go a long way: some FOB Chinese would never think of having a toilet break or even having a cup of water unless explicitly permitted, and they are willing to suffer! is that so hard for you to say yes upfront? is your goal getting the job done well or is it pinching every penny no matter what? don’t be an a**hole if you are not starving: communicate!
(ix) have a small amount of money ($100-200) set aside just for housekeeping; let her know where it is and that she could spend it; I have never heard an East Asian steal your money: it’s an absolute taboo
(x) the Asian style of employment assumes helping them with small issues: never refuse translating or helping them make an official phone call, or even a small loan for a long-time employee!
I hope it works for you as it has for me! Good luck!
Please feel free to replace “Chinese” with Korean, Vietnamese, Thai, Malaysian, Indonesian, etc., in my previous post, if you will. This is an East Asian guide, after all. 🙂 Good luck!