en garde

A little flame war? Or turn the other cheek?

Yes, that's hilarious -- especially since that person has a letter printed in the Jackson Free Press this week!!! And writes me constantly trying to get a conversation going. I suggest posting on the blog, as I don't have time for long e-mail discussions.

Don't y'all love this logic?

The letter-writer says:

Unmarried mothers, whether teen or older, are the No. 1 cause of poverty, crime, drug addiction, generational government dependency, failure to finish schooling, unemployment and future dependence on government transfer payments for food, housing, health care, etc.

No mention of "unmarried fathers," "absent fathers," "unprotected sex," "sex education," or anything else. Just a big dump on young women who get pregnant and then decide to have their children, whether or not they have a safety net in place.

Let's all blame the single mothers! Oh wait, except the ones with rich parents who can cover for them.

Has she offered any solutions to this problem besides removing the Dortch column?

-P

So it's all the unmarried mothers' faults? Does this include divorced mothers, or just teen mothers? That is just a blanket statement of correlation disguised as causation, and it's ridiculous. I can only imagine what this woman must be like in person!

Kind of like male African American genocide will reduce the crime rate...

Yes, there are so many logical problems with that statement that it's hard to know where to start.

Let's try this scenario: A woman stays with an abusive man who hurts her and her children, lies, cheats, ignores, beats. Quick quiz: Could that, in turn, perhaps lead to "poverty, crime, drug addiction, generational government dependency, failure to finish schooling, unemployment and future dependence on government transfer payments for food, housing, health care, etc." It couldn't possibly kick off, or feed into, cycles of "intergenerational abuse," could it? Nah, let's let the dudes off the hook and blame the mothers.

Also, here's another fun question: What is the No. 1 cause of "single motherhood"?

Single fatherhood, perhaps. Why must we stop partway up the food chain here?

You know, I read that the other morning when I was doing my daily morning perusal of the opinion page and it was the first time in history I was violently upset the CL doesn't let you post come backs under their stories.

That woman is an idiot.

i just love how "abstinence education" is the silver bullet that's supposed to somehow kill that "500-lb gorilla" over there on our liberal sofa.

Ladd: Single fatherhood, perhaps. Why must we stop partway up the food chain here?

Philip: But they gotta get their wild oats out of their system. That's part of what makes them a man <snorts!>

Yeah, "boys will be boys."

That excuse-making B.S. hurts men more than -- or at least as much as -- women, I believe. I can't imagine going through life considered to be a cheatin' heathen until proven otherwise. Talk about bigotry of low expectations.

"Talk about bigotry of low expectations." -- nice one!

I'm amused to hear that The Clarion-Ledger is afraid to publish her column. I know exactly how you feel, Heddy-Dale; for years, Random House has been afraid to offer me an eight-figure book deal, Columbia University has been afraid to award me the Pulitzer, and the boys and girls in Stockholm have been afraid to award me the Nobel Peace Prize.

Agreed on single motherhood equaling single fatherhood. I'm trying to cut down on my N-JAM bashing, but it's worth mentioning that the last thread I participated in on that site was one where an anonymous joker suggested that single mothers should be denied access to public housing. No comments from the Committee on Personal Responsibility about the single fathers who impregnate them--except, of course, that they should presumably be given veto power over abortions. No responsibility if the pregnancy comes to term, but veto power, sure.

Shades of James Brown: "This is a man's, a man's, a man's world..."

If anyone ever needs to know why I'm such a "hardcore feminist," I think this is a pretty damn good Exhibit A.


Cheers,

TH

You know what they say, Tom: A loser is as a loser does.

Don't ever get any of those guys under a black light, by the way; that big L on their foreheads glow in the dark mightily.

Re Dr. M -- it's funny that everyone is so *scared* of her writing being that she has something in my paper, the White Flight Gazette and the Ledge this week (the WFG even has her picture above her piece, which was actually a letter that we ran, too).

Shaking in my Dan Posts with fear, I am.

It's more like the writing, and the logic, ain't stellar enough to deserve a column. But folks who think like that don't get it. And that doesn't keep me up at night.

Yeah, but the possibility that people like that make up a congressional majority--that keeps me up at night!

Agreed that Heddy-Dale is pretty harmless, though. Truth is that the Internet is full of people newspapers are "afraid" to print!


Cheers,

TH

*sigh* You know, one day ya'll are going to have to post a Appendix with the definitions of all these acronyms and in-jokes explained.

NJAM? White Flight Gazette?

People forget that the Ledger exists to stir controversy, not publish the truth.

Sorry, Iron. N-JAM is a term I came up with for the small group of North Jackson Angry Men who are obsessed with the Jackson Free Press, and hate, hate, hate ideas other than their own. The WFG is the Northside Sun. I've used these acronyms a number of times, but I realize not everyone reads every single word I write, other than the N-JAM boys. ;-D

A glosssary could be fun at some point.

Wow! I'm way more powerful that I had origninally thought! Single mom's CAN do anything! I bet I can CREATE drug addiction out of thin air, plus make a dress out of a feedbag and a man out of Heddy-Dale.

emily, (I know this is off topic) but where have you been and where are you columns?
jade

The link is broken? What was the original article?

RNH.

Interesting? It all goes back to mothers & fathers - right & wrong-GOD

1st of all, A married woman cant be a single parent. All this topic did was make some 15-year old think its cool to have sex as long as I use protection and dont have any single children. But it does not tell them what the BIBLE says or what the Koran says or what the Torah says....Im the the holy raider or anything because I am just as guilty as the next person who posted. At the end of the day, when the lights go out will you be in heaven or hell! Reply to that Post.

-Lucifer

Huh??? Have I forgotten the English language? Because that post made no sense.

It was 6:30 this morning - I was just waking up. Excuse the typos!However, the post refers to ABSTANENCE. Thats what it should mention. Morals and Values, waiting until you are married and in a committed relationship where both parties are financially able to maintain each others lifestyle and love the relationship enough to have children. So there won't be unmarried mothers.

Until the possible D-I-V-O-R-C-E

What about "unmarried fathers," JankyJohn?

Also, not everyone chooses marriage. It is up to the individual whether to "abstain" until marriage; some do not want to, and it's not your business or mine. However, we can and should try to teach young people the pitfalls of making that decision early, and equip them with what they need to keep from getting pregnant if they do make that decision (and many, many will/do, regardless of what you and I think. Playing God doesn't keep young people from getting pregnant). Just because you think they should abstain doesn't mean they will.

That's the issue here. I'll leave the "heaven or hell" rhetoric for others to argue. I'm most interested right now in helping people in the here and now.

The same goes for unmarried fathers. Its all in an opinion. You have your views and I have my views. Helping the Here and Now also starts from GOD weither you are into the heaven/ hell rhetoric or not. This should be included with the teaching of the pitfalls of making decisions early.

Its all in an opinion. You have your views and I have my views.

Obviously, that is true, Janky Jank. We can stipulate that.

And inherent in that fact means that everyone has the right to an opinion, as well as to decide how to live their own lives or not, whether to worship the same God you do, or not worship at all, and whether to have sex before they get married. It is none of your business, or mine, what they choose to do But what we can do is try to teach responsibility, as well as ensure that people have good access to birth control, not to mention hold "single fathers" just as accountable as we do "single mothers." Otherwise, it's a meaningless double standard and sound bite meant to bash certain people and abdicate the responsibility of others. Doing that is irresponsible.

Nothing's wrong with a good understanding, now if we could only spread the word and get everyone else to understand. Especially, my single fathers, step up to the plate and swing instead of created new statistics.

TheJankyJohn said: ABSTINENCE. Thats what it should mention. Morals and Values, waiting until you are married and in a committed relationship where both parties are financially able to maintain each others lifestyle and love the relationship enough to have children. So there won't be unmarried mothers.

Good ideas -- no question. How would you enforce them?

Ladd, itodd, here is a story from WSJ on the future of newspapers. makes some good points and explains a little more the dilemma papers like Gannett find themselves in.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009685