Monday, February 20, 2006

A Letter to Kate O'Beirne

By Rosemarie Jackowski

Read full article...

Posted 02/20 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. Perhaps the left is too afraid to really offer a much better solution than what Ms. Jackowski suggest because it may offend sensitivities or is not “Political Correct”.  As a father and a man who was devestated by parential pecuniary the solution that Ms. Jackowski offers is fascist and really only benefits the capitalistic state.

    Really support for children would come from the whole of society not just from the individual parents.  Perhaps Ms. Jackowski should read Susan Smith’s “Women and Socialism” to expend her perspectives.  The family has become a tool of capitalism and so has relationships.  To be made homeless by the state in the service of seeing my children used as tools of aggrandizement does even register to Ms. Jackowski.  Her suggestion will only intensify the conflict between parents with children being pawns and tools of either the parents and the state.

    A better solution that should be promoted by the left and that can win the support of both father and mother is to improve welfare.  Welfare should be funded by the state.  Ms. Jackowski brought the fact that mother should be paid if the choose to stay home with their children.  So where will the money come from?  It should come from all of us in the form of progressive taxation and not in the form of regressive, fascist and failing approaches of a system that benefits capitalism rather than families.

    PP

    Posted by Parental Pecuniary from San Quentin  on  02/20  at  12:38 PM

  2. With corrections as I didn’t have much time initially…

    ===============================================


    Perhaps the left is too afraid to really offer a much better solution than what Ms. Jackowski suggests because it may offend sensitivities or is not “Politically Correct”.  As a father and a man who was devastated by parental pecuniary the solution that Ms. Jackowski offers is reactionary and fascist and really only benefits the capitalistic state.

    Real support for children should come from the whole of society not just from the individual parents.  Perhaps Ms. Jackowski should read Susan Smith’s “Women and Socialism” to expand her perspectives.  The family unit functions as a tool of capitalism and relationships are thus distorted by capitalism.  To be made homeless by the state in the service of seeing my children used as tools of aggrandizement does not even register to Ms. Jackowski.  Her suggestion will only intensify the conflict between parents with children being used as pawns and tools by the parents, lawyers, and the state.

    A far better solution that should be promoted by the left and that can win the support of fathers and mothers is to improve the welfare system.  Welfare should be fully funded by society.  Ms. Jackowski brought up the fact that mothers should be paid if they choose to stay home with their children.  So where will the money come from?  It should come from all of us in the form of progressive taxation and not in the form of regressive, fascist and failing approaches of a system that benefits capitalism above families.  A misogynistic system should not be replaced with a misanthropic one.

    Posted by Parental Pecuniary from San Quentin  on  02/20  at  06:51 PM

  3. San Quentin...I agree with you. I was responding only to the C-span interview. The world that you describe is not here yet. What would you recommend for the children who are in need right now?  In the system that exists today, parents are responsible for their children. I agree that all of society should contribute and that Capitalism does not work to the benefit of most of us. I also agree that sometimes fathers are victimized by the system. However, roughly 99% of children who are abandoned by a parent, are abandoned by the father. That’s just the way that it is. The children always suffer. There has to be a better way.

    I am sorry that you were one of many thousands who were hurt by the system. The bureaucrats who run the system benefit from it and that is why it is almost impossible to fix it. They like it the way that it is....parents and children don’t matter.

    Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

    Posted by rosemarie jackowski from  on  02/20  at  07:30 PM

  4. rosemarie,

    I knew that your response was going to be…

    What would you recommend for the children who are in need right now?

    That is the kind of “facts on the ground” thinking that leads to no solution.  Increasing the authoritarian powers of the state for “children” is a fallacy of an appeal to pity and fear that plays right into the hands of the state.  What would happen in that scenario is that fathers would have to become reactionaries in order to protect themselves from state oppression.  Is that what you want?

    Parental pecuniary is not child support but we did have a welfare system that women organizations like NOW allowed the Democrats to rollback. Even NOW supported Clinton/Gore even after they and female congressional members like Dianne Finestein rolled back these limited protections.  Isn’t it interesting that only the women in the Senate to vote against the repeal of AFDC was African American senator—Carol Mosley Braun. Not Barbara Boxer, not Finestein, not McClusky.  Exactly like the premise of the book “Women Who Made The World Worse”.

    Rather than offering a solution that will only intensify conflict I’m suggesting that we (men and women) fight together for radical solutions.  Thus to answer you question is referenced in both this post and in my previous post (and it is not really that radical)—a universal welfare system based on progressive taxation on the whole of society.  This means providing money for childcare, healthcare, education, housing, etc.  I need your advocacy to convience women to see that it is in their interest to fight along side men rather than against them.

    PP

    Posted by Parental Pecuniary from San Quentin  on  02/20  at  09:14 PM

  5. PP, I agree with you. Your view is NOT radical at all. To me it is just common sense. But, I believe that economic protections should be given to children in the most timely way possible, by any means necessary.

    Posted by rosemarie jackowski from  on  02/21  at  09:23 AM

  6. If by “timely” and “by any means necessary” you mean more state repression and exploitation then you reflect why the left has no voice on this issue.  The right-wing has a larger voice on this issue and it will only result in men turning in that reactionary direction in order to protect themselves from the state.  In fact you may have noticed that “enforcement” has been cut back recently from Bush’s budget as mostly men vote for Bush.

    It’s really disappointing and regretable that you feel such desparation that you are willing to abandon principles.

    PP

    Posted by Parental Pecuniary from San Quentin  on  02/21  at  02:37 PM

  7. PP, What makes you think that I have abandoned any principles? My principles are intact. My main principle is that the powerless should be protected in the most timely way, by any means necessary.

    Posted by rosemarie jackowski from  on  02/22  at  06:12 PM

  8. rosemarie,

    Once again you refrain from defining “timely” and “any means necessary”.  When Malcolm X used that phrase he meant in the struggle for justice and not to exchange one injustice for another.  He didn’t mean for blacks to obtain justice and protection if that came in the form of enhancing or extending state repression.

    Your advocacy *assumes* that court ordered “support” is based on some sort of “just” result in the courts when in fact many fathers are not in an economic position to pay for two households and are faced with their own economic survival being pitted “against” their chidren’s interest.  Only capitalism benefit under these conditions.  Let’s also included the stats that 80% of all divorces are filed by women.  What would be best for a child’s development is to a reduction in the adverserial aspect of divorce.  The only real “timely” solution is universal welfare.

    As I stated, welfare has been rollbacked.  Bush has cut “enforcement”. It would appear to me that you are running out of “timely” solutions.  It would make better sence to form alliances and advocate solutions that are win-win for parents and children.  Healty parents make for a better environment for raising and supporting children.  Reducing the adversarial aspect of divorce improves the situation for all parties while diminishing the repressive aspect of state and the monetary gain for lawyers and other opportunists that make an industry out of divorce.  It will also provide the economic security you advocate while diminishing or eliminate the regressive aspects that typically crush families.

    But from this discussion if going to court and crushing some poor sole means food on the table for Johnny you’ll forego principles for crumbs. The struggle for justice goes beyond the crumbs that you’ll get from the capitalist.

    PP

    Posted by Parential Pecuinary from  on  02/24  at  03:02 AM

  9. PP, If someone is bleeding, it is more important to apply a tourniquet. That is not the time to debate the merits of universal access to health care.
    If you are in a sinking boat, that is not the time to debate the merits of various floatation devices.
    I assure you that no one has LESS confidence in the judicial system than I do.

    Posted by rosemarie jackowski from  on  02/24  at  03:13 PM

  10. Rosemarie,

    I appreciate your comments and empathized with you regarding your trials with the injustice system.  But I will depart with this question:  At what point to you abandon prinicples for the consequences of expediancy?

    Thanks,
    PP

    Posted by Parential Pecuniary from Joliet  on  03/04  at  12:14 PM

  11. NEVER, NEVER abandon principle.

    Posted by rosemarie jackowski from  on  03/04  at  12:41 PM
    12. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: Nation-States Gone Wild: The Persecution of David Irving

    Previous entry: The Illegitimate Child of Ethnic Nationalism

    [ads]

    Support Press Action