From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Mon Jul 05 1999 - 17:04:00 MDT
> From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <mike@lorrey.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, universal care for children frees women to sleep with
> > with someone for his desirability, unconcerned with regard
> > to his resource base.
> >
> > You could be poor but if you can come up with cute, funny, strong,
> > a good "rating" by the independent panel (:-)) ... you would have
> > more women after your buns.
>
> Really. Well, why hasn't it happened with 35 years of welfare society?
> Its the same thing.
No, no no! There is a distinct difference between "universal *care*"
and "caring" to hide the problem. In some tribal societies, the
children are viewed as "cherished resources" (in contrast to the
average politician's view of the average welfare child...).
There is a big difference to putting a band-aid on a wound
to stop the bleeding and treating a serious infection.
There is also a big difference in a culture structured to
support children and one where children are viewed as a
parent's responsibility or a culture where the system is designed
to promote having children as a method for supporting the parent!
If you can find a "welfare child" who considers that he was
universally cared for and cherished by the elders of his
community, then I'll eat this letter. Children aren't stupid,
the recognize when they are being swept under the rug or
pushed into the background (or treated as commodities).
When that happens, the result is low self-esteem. Can you
honestly claim that our "welfare society" served to promote
the self-esteem of the individuals who were "helped" by it?
[Which is not to say that I know how to design or operate a
program that would be designed to promte self-esteem!]
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:23 MST