The MMM Project’s subsequent reaction to the research is twofold:
1/ To embark on a nationwide campaign to “celebrate” single parents.
2/ Create an “on-line Navigators portal” for single parents.
The authors appear to be lining up future employment for themselves, anticipating further funding from the Peter McKenzie Project (commissioners of the report) and the government.
They have also noticed another gap in the market and propose, “Creating single parents’ networks that operate similar to LGBTQI+ networks, within business.” Perhaps the creation of a ‘Single Parent Tick’ akin to the pervasive Rainbow Tick?
Of course, there is no guarantee such a ‘tick’ would attract single parents off benefits. As one survey respondent remarked: “I can’t afford to work – If I work 40 hrs a week, after paying childcare I only earn $100 more than on a benefit, that’s $2.50 per hour.”
It’s worth exploring that comment. If their household budget required $100 more, surely the beneficiary couldn’t afford not to work? What the respondent seems to be saying is the marginal difference is so small they can’t afford to put in 40 hours effort at just $2.50 per hour. Someone else can put in the effort and pay the tax required to furnish their income.
Another respondent says, “We don’t just want a job, we want a career and opportunities to study/work that fit our lives as sole carers for our tamariki."
So, people doing the ‘jobs’ should provide you with ‘careers and study opportunities’? You do know where the money for your benefit comes from, right?
Maybe not. Another said, “MSD treat me like I’m a desperate Māori trying to milk them – You would think you were asking for money from their personal bank account.”
Well, hello. Your case manager toils to pay taxes. It feels exactly like their personal bank account.
There’s a lot of people out there kidding themselves, and it’s not just beneficiaries.
Despite the continuing elevated poverty and poorer health experienced by lone parents and their children, we are exhorted to “celebrate” this family form by embarking on a “nationwide media, marketing and communications campaign … to change behaviours; mobilise communities; and address social attitudes that stigmatise single parents.”
Single parenthood is stigmatised by society because of the hardship, loneliness and vulnerability it entails for mother and child. The moral disapproval exists because many (though certainly not all) single parents expect to live at the expense of others. This societal displeasure is only exacerbated by the increasing ease with which to avoid pregnancy or find work to support a family.
Here’s the reality. This latest advocacy project is yet another bad idea from the poverty activism industry which creates lucrative employment/funding opportunities for those with an eye for riding the gravy train. It’s cynical and relies on perpetuating victimhood. We are trapped in a culture of faux kindness and silly celebration. It is sacrilege to suggest to anyone they made a mistake, or a poor choice. They don’t have to own it because we all ‘own it’ – we are all made responsible for the consequences of decisions of others we have no control over. This is the inevitable upshot of compulsory collectivism.
There is another option, but I'd be laughed out of the room for suggesting it. Avoidance and prevention just might be a better approach.
Which makes more sense?
Numbers (not provided in the report)
Census 2018: 131,787 sole parent families with dependent children
MSD 2021: 99,000 sole parent families on a main benefit
Lindsay Mitchell is a welfare commentator who blogs HERE.
2/ Create an “on-line Navigators portal” for single parents.
The authors appear to be lining up future employment for themselves, anticipating further funding from the Peter McKenzie Project (commissioners of the report) and the government.
They have also noticed another gap in the market and propose, “Creating single parents’ networks that operate similar to LGBTQI+ networks, within business.” Perhaps the creation of a ‘Single Parent Tick’ akin to the pervasive Rainbow Tick?
Of course, there is no guarantee such a ‘tick’ would attract single parents off benefits. As one survey respondent remarked: “I can’t afford to work – If I work 40 hrs a week, after paying childcare I only earn $100 more than on a benefit, that’s $2.50 per hour.”
It’s worth exploring that comment. If their household budget required $100 more, surely the beneficiary couldn’t afford not to work? What the respondent seems to be saying is the marginal difference is so small they can’t afford to put in 40 hours effort at just $2.50 per hour. Someone else can put in the effort and pay the tax required to furnish their income.
Another respondent says, “We don’t just want a job, we want a career and opportunities to study/work that fit our lives as sole carers for our tamariki."
So, people doing the ‘jobs’ should provide you with ‘careers and study opportunities’? You do know where the money for your benefit comes from, right?
Maybe not. Another said, “MSD treat me like I’m a desperate Māori trying to milk them – You would think you were asking for money from their personal bank account.”
Well, hello. Your case manager toils to pay taxes. It feels exactly like their personal bank account.
There’s a lot of people out there kidding themselves, and it’s not just beneficiaries.
Despite the continuing elevated poverty and poorer health experienced by lone parents and their children, we are exhorted to “celebrate” this family form by embarking on a “nationwide media, marketing and communications campaign … to change behaviours; mobilise communities; and address social attitudes that stigmatise single parents.”
Single parenthood is stigmatised by society because of the hardship, loneliness and vulnerability it entails for mother and child. The moral disapproval exists because many (though certainly not all) single parents expect to live at the expense of others. This societal displeasure is only exacerbated by the increasing ease with which to avoid pregnancy or find work to support a family.
Here’s the reality. This latest advocacy project is yet another bad idea from the poverty activism industry which creates lucrative employment/funding opportunities for those with an eye for riding the gravy train. It’s cynical and relies on perpetuating victimhood. We are trapped in a culture of faux kindness and silly celebration. It is sacrilege to suggest to anyone they made a mistake, or a poor choice. They don’t have to own it because we all ‘own it’ – we are all made responsible for the consequences of decisions of others we have no control over. This is the inevitable upshot of compulsory collectivism.
There is another option, but I'd be laughed out of the room for suggesting it. Avoidance and prevention just might be a better approach.
Which makes more sense?
Numbers (not provided in the report)
Census 2018: 131,787 sole parent families with dependent children
MSD 2021: 99,000 sole parent families on a main benefit
Lindsay Mitchell is a welfare commentator who blogs HERE.
3 comments:
Let's celebrate the decline of the family unit as it disappears into oblivion and enjoy all the manifest welfare benefits it will burgeon. No doubt the likes of 'The Greens' and all those other identity politics pushers will think it a sterling idea that a lack of personal responsibility is supported by the State, i.e. other taxpayers. Just what do these idiots think it will do to society and the economy in the long run if this attitude were to prevail?
Welfare should be a short term safety net, not a way of life.
Thanks for that. Our children would do much better with government nurturing of intact families rather than the current approach of encouraging and incentivizing parental separation. A good proportion of sole parents achieved that circumstance because the family makes a lot more money if the parents say they have separated and live apart (e.g. one minimum wage of, say, $700 after tax vs that wage plus a DPB of around $400 after tax plus accommodation supplements all with no obligations except completing requisite forms). By living apart their break up then often becomes real as the partners live under the stress of maintaining the pretense of separation, become unfaithful to each other or suspicious thereof and/or develop conflict about how to manage their family contribution under those conditions.
Other sole parents resulted from silly family law that defines normal behaviour during disagreements such as criticism or raised voices, at least if shown by a male, as 'violence', while lawyers encourage parental separation and greed in their clients above the best interests of children.
In other cases, the ready availability of an immediate benefit leads parents, usually mothers, to separate rather than work out difficulties that will arise in most relationships.
Underlying a lot of parental separation is feminist ideology that encourages unrealistic expectations of men.
Instead of celebrating sole parenthood, it's way past time that we celebrate families, provide incentives for families to stay together, provide support for parents before separation, and so forth. Also, impose a stand-down period before providing free money for sole parenthood. When the justification is actually sufficient for separating, the intended sole parent can seek temporary support from family, friends, charities and from other emergency benefits available. That would encourage many more parents to get past a period of unhappiness and keep providing the children with the identity and security of a family unit with extended family relationships intact.
“When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.” ― Thomas Sowell
Post a Comment