Public policy, social issues, gender politics, religion, civitas, and other taboo topics fall under the hammer of Shava's iconoclasmic force of natural philosophy.
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Just shoot him! (a modest proposal)
Thursday, March 13, 2003
11:43 PM
Folks who know me know that I am as sweet and nonviolent a person as could be in real life. My father once described himself as a Militant Pacifist: “People who believe in solving problems with guns,” he declared, “should be shot. And if it would solve the paradox, I’d volunteer to be the first one.”
I’m not quite that self-sacrificing, but I’m not one to advocate violence outside of extreme circumstances.
That said, let me send this message to American women facing single parenthood: JUST SHOOT HIM.
Better yet, be clever and get someone else to do it for you, such that it will never be traced.
You see, there are so many problems with having an ex-husband. They tend to have less scruples with their lawyers. They tend to pay child support late, when they pay at all. If, gods help you, you end up on welfare, you’ll be punished by the harshest public policy outside the prison system in order to pay your rent and feed your kids.
If your man has been a wastrel, no good job history, paid under the table – you may be out of luck.
But by all means, if he’s a decent hardworking soul, and a productive and faithful member of capitalist American society -- just shoot him.
You see, getting child support and custody is a terrible hassle. And you haven’t faced hell until you’ve been thrown into the safety net, such as it is.
But widows are sealed and approved by the US government as virtuous women. If he dies, you get support for you and your kids until the kids are twenty. No questions asked (unless you get caught on murder charges).
It’s obvious where the public policy morality falls on this one – a woman on welfare is a whore. God alone knows what she did to deserve being thrown on public support. Maybe (and this was me a few years back) her husband was the only person in the family with a job currently, and he’s found another woman to run off with two weeks before rent’s due, and leaves her with half a month of rent in the bank. Maybe he’s just disappeared. Maybe she’s taken the children and fled to a new location because of abuse.
Regardless, it’s generally not the man who is punished. Charges of adultery? Unlikely. Chase him down for child support? It’s amazing how indigent some men can look on paper. It’s truly amazing what threats of legal (or illegal) action can intimidate a woman in an uncertain situation.
Just shoot him. Heck, even if you shoot him in bed with his mistress, you’ll get off scot free in most states. And then, you’ll get social security survivor benefits for a long time, and never have to deal with his sorry face again.
All right, this is an immodest proposal. I don’t mean it for a second that a woman should consider shooting her to-be-ex. In fact, I still consider my recent ex to be a fine human being – and I hope, a friend, even after he reads this!
Public policy still stands – a widow deserves support for herself and her children. A woman scorned deserves scorn. There’s no other way to explain the public policy we’ve got.
We made divorce simple and easy, forgetting that barriers to divorce also protect the family, even though bad marriages hurt it. Ugly divorce courts never came between a man and his passions. The less he cares about his kids, the easier it is to consider divorce, and the harsher the tactics. But the ease of marriage probably dissolves some unions that could have been made solid, with a bit more patience and incentive to avoid the judgement of the courts.
Now, I’m not proposing that we cut off the widows. That would be a pity and a shame, and against the Masonic principles of our Founding Fathers. Like all political pundits, I channel the will of the FFs directly, so you can take it from me.
But perhaps, Mr. Bush, as you consider protecting families through making welfare more onerous, before encouraging marriage by giving women the option of marrying to get off welfare in a hurry (I can see that now – MSW’s as yentas -- “Six weeks, guaranteed, we find you a husband, or your money back. Of course, we cut of benefits at eight weeks, and we can’t promise he’ll be any better than the last one…”), maybe you should consider the inequities to the mothers (and it is mostly mothers) who head up 30% of the households with children today in this country...
Can we get a Republican administration to give single mothers and their children a break?
On second thought, just shoot him.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
