Paying Addicts Not to Breed
Ilene Bilenky
A notice on CNN online today- a woman who has adopted 4 children of
addicted "mothers" (loose term) with her husband has started a personal
program to pay addicts to get tubals/vasectomies. The addict has to make
the arrangements (with some guidance) and get the deed done and bring
documentation to this woman, and she hands over $200 in cash. She clearly
acknowledges knowing that these people are doing so for the cash to get
drugs, and feels that preventing more suffering addicted babies is worth
it.
Methinks she'll get flamed somewhat? I wish I knew how to contact her to
offer support. I think it's a great, although desperate, idea. I believe
the article said at least 2 addicts have followed through so far.
Ilene B
Dorothea M. Rovner
In article <ibilenky-081...@ts002d23.box-ma.concentric.net>,
ibil...@cris.com (Ilene Bilenky) wrote:
> Methinks she'll get flamed somewhat? I wish I knew how to contact her to
> offer support. I think it's a great, although desperate, idea. I believe
> the article said at least 2 addicts have followed through so far.
Methinks she better prepare to get sued. Bet you *anything you like*
that at least one of these women will go sobbing to a lawyer about how
she was tricked into being sterilized, and she didn't know what she was
agreeing to, and she wants to have a baaaaaaybeeeeeeeee...
Dorothea
--
Dorothea M. Rovner |
Gradual Student <*> | High Priestess of Mung
dmrovner (at) students.wisc.edu |
Hope Munro Smith
In article <dorothea-ya023180...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
doro...@usa.net (Dorothea M. Rovner) wrote:
> Methinks she better prepare to get sued. Bet you *anything you like*
> that at least one of these women will go sobbing to a lawyer about how
> she was tricked into being sterilized, and she didn't know what she was
> agreeing to, and she wants to have a baaaaaaybeeeeeeeee...
>
Think about what you're saying for a minute. You're supporting
the sterilization of people who in the view of dominant society
have "no right" to reproduce -- e.g. drug addicts, welfare recipients,
minorities, etc. In other words, you're just buying
right back into the system, rather than rebelling against it.
-Hope Munro Smith
(also a childfree graduate student)
doug h.
In article <647okb$h47$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
Peggy Currid <cur...@staff.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Hope Munro Smith <hop...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> minorities, etc.
> Nice try at putting words in someone's mouth. I don't recall that anyone
> said anything about supporting the sterilization of minorities.
Right, just the sterilization of "undesirables." Next stop, Auschwitz.
Dorothea M. Rovner
In article <34660506...@hermes.rdrop.com>, myt...@agora.rdrop.com
(Laurel Halbany) wrote:
> Instead, why not pay her to have sex only with men who can prove they
> have had vasectomies, or with women?
If she's an addict, she has a rather greater-than-average probability
of selling her body. I don't think most people who do that check into
the reproductive status of the buyer.
Peggy Currid
>
>> Methinks she better prepare to get sued. Bet you *anything you like*
>> that at least one of these women will go sobbing to a lawyer about how
>> she was tricked into being sterilized, and she didn't know what she was
>> agreeing to, and she wants to have a baaaaaaybeeeeeeeee...
>>
>
>Think about what you're saying for a minute. You're supporting
>the sterilization of people who in the view of dominant society
>have "no right" to reproduce -- e.g. drug addicts, welfare recipients,
Yep. What's wrong with that?
>minorities, etc.
Nice try at putting words in someone's mouth. I don't recall that anyone
said anything about supporting the sterilization of minorities.
>In other words, you're just buying
>right back into the system, rather than rebelling against it.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point. In my view, the system supports
and encourages unfit people to have children (or at least the system does
nothing to actively discourage it). Not having children, and taking a
stance against those who breed unthinkingly, *is* rebelling against the
system.
Peggy
--
"Granola pisses me off." -- Eric Cartman
Laurel Halbany
doro...@usa.net (Dorothea M. Rovner) wrote:
> Methinks she better prepare to get sued. Bet you *anything you like*
>that at least one of these women will go sobbing to a lawyer about how
>she was tricked into being sterilized, and she didn't know what she was
>agreeing to, and she wants to have a baaaaaaybeeeeeeeee...
Instead, why not pay her to have sex only with men who can prove they
have had vasectomies, or with women?
----------------------------------------------------------
Laurel Halbany
mythago@twisty_little_maze.com
(Substitute dashes for underscores to remove spamblock)
naomi pardue
Hope Munro Smith (hop...@mail.utexas.edu) wrote:
> Think about what you're saying for a minute. You're supporting
> the sterilization of people who in the view of dominant society
> have "no right" to reproduce -- e.g. drug addicts, welfare recipients,
> right back into the system, rather than rebelling against it.
I didn't see anything about sterilizing minorities. Or welfare recipients
for that matter...
Naomi
Ilene Bilenky
In article <647okb$h47$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, cur...@staff.uiuc.edu (Peggy
Currid) wrote:
> Hope Munro Smith <hop...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
As I read the article- the woman has nothing to do with it (except for
placing the ad offering money) until the addict shows her proof of
sterilization. Then she hands over the cash. Not sure I see where she gets
sued.. I imagine she checked into this herself.
Ilene B
Livia
myt...@agora.rdrop.com (Laurel Halbany) wrote:
>doro...@usa.net (Dorothea M. Rovner) wrote:
>
>> Methinks she better prepare to get sued. Bet you *anything you like*
>>that at least one of these women will go sobbing to a lawyer about how
>>she was tricked into being sterilized, and she didn't know what she was
>>agreeing to, and she wants to have a baaaaaaybeeeeeeeee...
>
>Instead, why not pay her to have sex only with men who can prove they
>have had vasectomies, or with women?
If "she" is an addict, she may not have great impulse control,
especially when high. And withholding the money after she's slipped
and had fertile sex (and is now carrying a crack baby, perhaps) is
rather like the barn door and the long-gone horse.
E l i s e R a u s c h e n b a c h
>Instead, why not pay her to have sex only with men who can prove they
>have had vasectomies, or with women?
Nice idea, but a little tougher to enforce, no? Follow the woman for
the rest of her life and tally up who she has sex with vs. check for a
certificate of some kind from the surgeon.
Elise
Hope Munro Smith
> >Think about what you're saying for a minute. You're supporting
> >the sterilization of people who in the view of dominant society
> >have "no right" to reproduce -- e.g. drug addicts, welfare recipients,
>
> Yep. What's wrong with that?
>
What's wrong with that is that you are assuming one set of priviledges
for yourself (the decision on whether or not to reproduce) and another
for another group of people.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you in particular were
suggesting the sterilization of minorities. However, you need to
realize that once this course of action is advocated for "undesirables"
it becomes harder to contain. Look at what they did with the
mentally disabled and juvenille deliquents back in the 1950s.
Do we really want to go back to that? Did you know that our government
tricked people in India, Asia and Latin America into sterilization because
they believed that was the "answer" to poverty -- when the real cause is
the centuries of economic exploitation and opportunism that European and
American businesses have brought about in the so-called "Third World?"
Again, I don't want to suggest that you,personally, are part of this,
just to point this out to you and encourage you to consider another side
of the issue.
> >In other words, you're just buying
> >right back into the system, rather than rebelling against it.
>
> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point. In my view, the system supports
> and encourages unfit people to have children (or at least the system does
> nothing to actively discourage it). Not having children, and taking a
> stance against those who breed unthinkingly, *is* rebelling against the
> system.
Again, I apologize. What I am arguing is basically philosophical,
so I hope you don't take it personally. What I am trying to argue
is that our society does not encourage unfit people to have children
-- rather it does the opposite. It tries to have unfit people
sterilized or control their fertility with things like norplant, etc.
Or it starts up "self-help" groups for minority teenagers to boost
their self-esteem so that they won't have babies too early in life.
It then encourages those who are at the socio-economic level of
the people in this newsgroup to reproduce because they are what
society thinks of as "ideal parents."
I guess I just know too much about the history of this country to
think that giving cash incentives for sterilization or norplant
are a good idea. People who are on welfare or on drugs are not
there because they have babies. Neither are they in that situation
because of some massive conspiracy to keep certain groups down. They are
there because of the demise of real employment and economic opportunities
for everyone
in the contemporary world, as well as the tendency for our society
to blame everything on personal irresponsibility rather than
structural conditions that make these problems so complex.
I hope that I have made it clear by now that I am not some troll
accusing this newsgroup of being white supremacists or anything
like that. I started looking at the posts because I am in the same
situation that you all are in. However, I cannot just sit aside
and let this issue go by without contributing my viewpoint.
Thank you very much for your time.
-Hope Munro Smith
UT at Austin
naomi pardue
Distribution:
Hope Munro Smith (hop...@mail.utexas.edu) wrote:
> In article <647okb$h47$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, cur...@staff.uiuc.edu (Peggy
> Currid) wrote:
> > >Think about what you're saying for a minute. You're supporting
> > >the sterilization of people who in the view of dominant society
> > >have "no right" to reproduce -- e.g. drug addicts, welfare recipients,
> >
> > Yep. What's wrong with that?
> >
>
> What's wrong with that is that you are assuming one set of priviledges
> for yourself (the decision on whether or not to reproduce) and another
> for another group of people.
> I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you in particular were
> suggesting the sterilization of minorities. However, you need to
> realize that once this course of action is advocated for "undesirables"
> it becomes harder to contain. Look at what they did with the
> mentally disabled and juvenille deliquents back in the 1950s.
But nobody is suggesting FORCING these women to be sterilized. An
individual person is merely offering some financial incentive for a woman
to voluntarily choose to do so.
> Do we really want to go back to that? Did you know that our government
> tricked people in India, Asia and Latin America into sterilization because
> they believed that was the "answer" to poverty -- when the real cause is
> the centuries of economic exploitation and opportunism that European and
> American businesses have brought about in the so-called "Third World?"
>
Of course having 15 kids is not a very effective way of getting OUT of
the poverty that may have been started by economic exploitation but is
now primarily the result of overpopulation and lack of resources.
> Again, I apologize. What I am arguing is basically philosophical,
> so I hope you don't take it personally. What I am trying to argue
> is that our society does not encourage unfit people to have children
> -- rather it does the opposite. It tries to have unfit people
> sterilized or control their fertility with things like norplant, etc.
And what is wrong with encouraging people who can't care for children to
use birth control?
> It then encourages those who are at the socio-economic level of
> the people in this newsgroup to reproduce because they are what
> society thinks of as "ideal parents."
It is certainly better, IMHO, for children to be born to parents who are
financially and emotionally fit to take care of them, rather than to 15
year olds and poverty stricken drug addicts ... (Which is not to say that
people who don't want kids should be pressured to have them, but only
that those who are NOT able to be decent parents should be pressured to
NOT have them.)
> are a good idea. People who are on welfare or on drugs are not
> there because they have babies.
But having repeated babies is an excellent way to keep from getting OFF
welfare. (You can't get job training or a job for that matter if you have
to care for a newborn and a toddler and a preschooler .. and even if you
could get a job, you couldn't pay for the daycare. So discouragign women
on welfare from having MORE children is, to my mind, a reasonable plan.
Neither are they in that situation
> because of some massive conspiracy to keep certain groups down. They are
> there because of the demise of real employment and economic opportunities
> for everyone
My local paper has 2-3 pages of want ads every day. In large cities there
are typically 50-100 pages of want ads. Lack of employment?
Naomi
Hope Munro Smith
In article <dorothea-ya023180...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
doro...@usa.net (Dorothea M. Rovner) wrote:
> In article <34660506...@hermes.rdrop.com>, myt...@agora.rdrop.com
> (Laurel Halbany) wrote:
>
> > Instead, why not pay her to have sex only with men who can prove they
> > have had vasectomies, or with women?
>
> If she's an addict, she has a rather greater-than-average probability
> of selling her body. I don't think most people who do that check into
> the reproductive status of the buyer.
If the woman who was offering the bucks really cared, she would
pay for each addicted mother to go through drug rehab, and then
help them find a job so they could take care of their own children.
Most addicts continue to be so because they can't afford the cost
of getting off drugs.
-Hope, the grad student
Dorothea M. Rovner
In article <hopems-1111...@dial-80-3.ots.utexas.edu>,
hop...@mail.utexas.edu (Hope Munro Smith) wrote:
> If the woman who was offering the bucks really cared, she would
> pay for each addicted mother to go through drug rehab, and then
> help them find a job so they could take care of their own children.
> Most addicts continue to be so because they can't afford the cost
> of getting off drugs.
Tell me another one. Anywhere *I've* ever been in the US, drug rehab
has been available on a sliding fee scale, usually government-subsidized.
Used to work at such a facility myself, in fact.
And AA and NA are free, aside from transportation to meetings.
Ilene Bilenky
I wonder if the poster has any real world experience here?
I do.
"The cost of getting off drugs" is precisely Medicaid paying for a detox.
(again. and again.) There is NO cost to getting off cocaine, as it is not
physically addictive, that is, needs no medical treatment if stopping. All
a detox does for cocaine is locks the door so the addict can't get more
coke. A rather expensive way to lock a door.
I get tired of liberals (I assume it's "liberals") who keep saying "money
for treatments beds" as if every addict can use it, and every addiction
has treatment. People often check into detox to lower their addiction dose
so it's easier to keep using. They often check in at certain times of the
month because they've used up their welfare check and can't afford drugs
until the next check comes.
The article I posted originally about is about a woman who does *really
care*, havind adopted 4 drug-addicted babies of "mothers". And she's only
offering a financial incentive to get permanent birth control.
Does the poster really believe that drug addicts just need enough money to
go to the Betty Ford Center and will then walk into a job with support?
Dream on. And keep those tax dollars flowing.
Ilene B
Ilene Bilenky
I'm afraid the ivory tower naivete (and rhetoric) is rearing its head here.
By the way, the original post didn't involve governments *at all*- a
private citizen decided to pay addicts to get sterilized (after she
adopted 4 babies from addicts and saw them detox- now that's a real
liberalizing experience)
Hope, many of us are quite well-versed in the political rhetoric (not
invented recently or in university) of capitalistic imperialism etc. etc.
I saw starving kids in Haiti. Maybe the French shouldn't have taken all
the hardwood forests down to make millions and maybe the Marines shouldn't
have been there in 1915 and so on and so forth.. however, the only useful
thing I felt I did there was give Depo-Provera shots in health clinics--
and they weren't then approved in the U.S. Nuthin' like a little kid with
protruding belly and reddish hair from protein inadequacy.
I not-so-gently suggest that the grad student needs to get out a little
more often.
Ilene B "tired of middle-class knee-jerk righteous liberal academics"
> Hope Munro Smith (hop...@mail.utexas.edu) wrote:
> : Do we really want to go back to that? Did you know that our government
Jean Coyle
Ilene Bilenky wrote:
>
> I'm afraid the ivory tower naivete (and rhetoric) is rearing its head here.
> By the way, the original post didn't involve governments *at all*- a
> private citizen decided to pay addicts to get sterilized (after she
> adopted 4 babies from addicts and saw them detox- now that's a real
> liberalizing experience)
> Hope, many of us are quite well-versed in the political rhetoric (not
> invented recently or in university) of capitalistic imperialism etc. etc.
> I saw starving kids in Haiti. Maybe the French shouldn't have taken all
> the hardwood forests down to make millions and maybe the Marines shouldn't
> have been there in 1915 and so on and so forth.. however, the only useful
> thing I felt I did there was give Depo-Provera shots in health clinics--
> and they weren't then approved in the U.S. Nuthin' like a little kid with
> protruding belly and reddish hair from protein inadequacy.
> I not-so-gently suggest that the grad student needs to get out a little> more often.
I agree Ilene,
And she needn't wander far from her own home to see children living in
cold,filthy, cockroach infested homes with no food in the fridge,
and a 5 yr old in charge of watching two younger kids (all fathered by
different men) while mom is out hooking to feed her crack habit.
All of this luxury of course being funded by our tax dollars.
Jean
Jean Coyle
Hope Munro Smith wrote:
>
> In article <dorothea-ya023180...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
> doro...@usa.net (Dorothea M. Rovner) wrote:
>
> > In article <34660506...@hermes.rdrop.com>, myt...@agora.rdrop.com
> > (Laurel Halbany) wrote:
> >
> > > Instead, why not pay her to have sex only with men who can prove they
> > > have had vasectomies, or with women?
> >
> > If she's an addict, she has a rather greater-than-average probability
> > of selling her body. I don't think most people who do that check into
> > the reproductive status of the buyer.
>
> pay for each addicted mother to go through drug rehab, and then
> help them find a job so they could take care of their own children.
> Most addicts continue to be so because they can't afford the cost
> of getting off drugs.
>
Do you really believe that ? All one must do to get treatment is to
present oneself to the nearest emergency and state that you are
depressed as result of your addiction and are seriously considering
suicide. You will then be given a treatment bed..whether you've got
insurance or not.
As for finding a job, if I earning $14 and hour am finding it a
stretch to support 2 kids ,how on earth is an addict, new to recovery
going to swing it on $5.25 an hour minium wage ?
Jean
Hope Munro Smith
In article <ibilenky-270...@ts004d17.box-ma.concentric.net>,
ibil...@cris.com (Ilene Bilenky) wrote:
> I wonder if the poster has any real world experience here?
> I do.
> "The cost of getting off drugs" is precisely Medicaid paying for a detox.
> (again. and again.) There is NO cost to getting off cocaine, as it is not
> physically addictive, that is, needs no medical treatment if stopping. All
> a detox does for cocaine is locks the door so the addict can't get more
> coke. A rather expensive way to lock a door.
> I get tired of liberals (I assume it's "liberals") who keep saying "money
> for treatments beds" as if every addict can use it, and every addiction
> has treatment. People often check into detox to lower their addiction dose
> so it's easier to keep using. They often check in at certain times of the
> month because they've used up their welfare check and can't afford drugs
> until the next check comes.
> The article I posted originally about is about a woman who does *really
> care*, havind adopted 4 drug-addicted babies of "mothers". And she's only
> offering a financial incentive to get permanent birth control.
> Does the poster really believe that drug addicts just need enough money to
> go to the Betty Ford Center and will then walk into a job with support?
> Dream on. And keep those tax dollars flowing.
> Ilene B
Gosh, I'm really surprised that I came off as a knee-jerk liberal.
If anything, I even further towards the political left -- that is,
progressive rather than liberal. I certainly
don't think that just throwing money at a problem will make it go
away, that is why I don't consider myself a knee-jerk liberal.
You're right -- I don't really believe that drug addicts can just check
into Betty Ford -- or AA or NA. And you're right, I'm not an expert on
this subject, and am sorry that I came off as a self-righteous academic
or whatever it was that someone else called me. However, the point I
was trying to make is that why is the woman the news article only
interested in paying off a few addicts when she could use her time
and resources to find solutions that could benefit a larger group of
people? These solutions wouldn't even need to cost money -- she could
encourage her other well-to-do friends to help out in the community,
mentor individuals as
they get off drugs and find work, etc.
It's obvious that what we've got in place doesn't work very well. But I
guess what I am proposing would necessitate a larger shift in the way
people interact with each other than can happen with a few new social
programs or every increasing tax dollars. Since I"m just a folklore major,
I obviously don't
have the expertise or even a plan to work this out. I'm just trying to
offer my own two cents based on things I've read and experienced, or things
my friends and classmates have experienced regarding this issue.
-Hope_
Hope Munro Smith
In article <ibilenky-270...@ts004d20.box-ma.concentric.net>,
ibil...@cris.com (Ilene Bilenky) wrote:
> I guess I think of "liberals" (having lived for years in the People's
> Republic of Cambridge) as people who have overarching theories of "the
> system" and rhetoric of "capitalistic imperialism" and so on to address
> very real daily specific problems. To me, a "progressive" is a liberal
> with a touch of common sense. (I have no idea what label I carry- hate to
> think that belief in reality *as it is now* and preference for personal
> responsibility would make me into a neo-Nazi).
Ack -- I know what you mean! I'm a recent transplant to Texas,
having lived most of my life in New England. This is the essential
difference between me and my sister.
> I sounded a bit harsh on Hope (who, me?) as there was this righteous tone,
> as if readers had never heard of imperialism and so on- perhaps the fervor
> of the recently converted/informed.
Don't worry, I didn't take it personally. I basically am still
working through my recent conversion to progressive politics and obviously
haven't thought thru everything. Didn't want to come off
as self-righteous but that's the difficulties of expressing oneself
on newsgroups. I'm a bit better off in "real time" discussions.
> I think the woman paying addicts not to breed has no particular power in
> society (I don't remember reading that they were at all "well to do") and
> in fact, if she knows addicts enough to meet with them to pay them off,
> may well live in their neighborhoods.
Good point. But interceding in this way is too close to the position
of the religious right for me to be comfortable with it. I'm not
saying that the woman is not altruistic, just that the issue needs
to be considered amongst an historical perspective -- particularly
regarding reproductive rights in the U.S. And that she shouldn't be
surprised if, for example, the African-American community is not
exactly thrilled with this idea. But this is just a hypothetical
thing I'm talking about, not something that would necessarily happen
(as is this whole discussion, for that matter.)
-Hope_
E l i s e R a u s c h e n b a c h
However, the point I
>was trying to make is that why is the woman the news article only
>interested in paying off a few addicts
She did much more than that, Hope. She adopted those addicts' babies
and saved them from a likely horrible childhood shuttled from foster
home to foster home.
Far be it from me to advocate a "1000 points of light" mindset, but
she was doing what she could do --- in the face of incompetent
government and overwhelming problems. I admire her for it.
>These solutions wouldn't even need to cost money -- she could
>encourage her other well-to-do friends to help out in the community,
>mentor individuals as
>they get off drugs and find work, etc.
>
Mentoring *children* works a lot better. Big Brother/Big Sister works
far better than trying to salvage the lives of adults. Better to show
children that it's OK to be smart, to achieve, to get good grades, to
go against the grain to be true to yourself.
Elise
E l i s e R a u s c h e n b a c h
On Tue, 11 Nov 1997 21:23:02 GMT, jy...@psu.edu (Jackie) wrote:
>Wait a minute, addicts can't afford the cost of getting off drugs???? If
>they can afford to use drugs they can afford to get off drugs.
>
Many addicts can "afford" drugs because they *deal* drugs. If they
get clean, we can hardly expect them to keep dealing in order to pay
for treatment, can we?
Elise
Ilene Bilenky
In article <hopems-1211...@dial-103-31.ots.utexas.edu>,
hop...@mail.utexas.edu (Hope Munro Smith) wrote:
> In article <ibilenky-270...@ts004d20.box-ma.concentric.net>,
> ibil...@cris.com (Ilene Bilenky) wrote:
>
By the way- the article didn't mention the race of anyone involved. The
woman could well have been of color.
Oh the narrow vision of the middle-class-afflicted.. :0
Ilene B
Brenda Peters
naomi pardue <npa...@indiana.edu> wrote in article
<649tfu$57u$1...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>...
> (welfare reference partly snipped)
> Neither are they in that situation
> > because of some massive conspiracy to keep certain groups down. They
are
> > there because of the demise of real employment and economic
opportunities
> > for everyone
>
> My local paper has 2-3 pages of want ads every day. In large cities there
> are typically 50-100 pages of want ads. Lack of employment?
>
> Naomi
>
Oh, please. As someone with a Master's degree who sent out over 100
resumes and got only three interviews, I don't see any abundance of
employment. Yes, I did try for MOSTLY jobs that were "beneath" me because
I needed the money. Jobs just aren't that easy to get, and if you have to
suddenly pay for child care AND try to, oh, say, get food too, it just
isn't going to be a happy situation for anyone.
Brenda (who, if she hears ONE more jolly comment about how it's such a
GREAT job market.....)
Brenda Peters
Jean Coyle <jean...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<3469B1...@earthlink.net>...
> Ilene Bilenky wrote:
> >
> > I'm afraid the ivory tower naivete (and rhetoric) is rearing its head
here.
>
> > I not-so-gently suggest that the grad student needs to get out a
little> more often.
> B "tired of middle-class knee-jerk righteous liberal academics"
> >
Hey, be nice to us righteous liberal grad student academics! If we came
out of our ivory towers, we'd have to compete for jobs with everyone else!
And we might even take 'em away from someone else. An astounding number of
us now are, shall we say, from diverse backgrounds, and we're doing some
amazing things to old theories based on our life experience. Sometimes it
takes a while to work out all the bugs. (hint: besides, not all of us
agree on things, just like all us CFers don't totally agree.)
Brenda (cranky after having had a great conversation with someone about CF
and then having a lousy class)
Kent Parks
Brenda Peters (71543...@compuserve.com) wrote:
: >
: > My local paper has 2-3 pages of want ads every day. In large cities there
: > are typically 50-100 pages of want ads. Lack of employment?
: Oh, please. As someone with a Master's degree who sent out over 100
: resumes and got only three interviews, I don't see any abundance of
: employment. Yes, I did try for MOSTLY jobs that were "beneath" me because
: I needed the money. Jobs just aren't that easy to get, and if you have to
: suddenly pay for child care AND try to, oh, say, get food too, it just
: isn't going to be a happy situation for anyone.
:
: Brenda (who, if she hears ONE more jolly comment about how it's such a
: GREAT job market.....)
Hear, Hear!! Hear, hear, HEAR!!!!!
As ANOTHER one with a Masters, sending out zillions of resumes for jobs
that are "beneath" me just to get my foot in the door, and has had about
the same number of interviews, I am sick of hearing about this "great job
market", too! About 95% of the jobs require at least 2-3 years experience
in the exact kind of job that is being offered (why would someone leave
one job after 3 years and be in the market for one EXACTLY like it?).
OTOH, in the retail/service jobs, they can't get people at all...THAT'S
where all the jobs are, with nobody willing to fill them, it seems. At
least around here.
Don't tell ME how thick the want ads are...
Kent
Hope Munro Smith
In article <01bcf097$a2a0b3e0$53cd...@usinet.bdleahy.ibm.net>, "Brenda
Peters" <71543...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> Oh, please. As someone with a Master's degree who sent out over 100
> resumes and got only three interviews, I don't see any abundance of
> employment. Yes, I did try for MOSTLY jobs that were "beneath" me because
> I needed the money. Jobs just aren't that easy to get, and if you have to
> suddenly pay for child care AND try to, oh, say, get food too, it just
> isn't going to be a happy situation for anyone.
>
> Brenda (who, if she hears ONE more jolly comment about how it's such a
> GREAT job market.....)
Brenda made the point that I was attempting to make exactly. There is
a definite lack of REAL employment opportunites for people at every
level of education. That is, jobs that allow people to use the
expertise they've gained through education, and/or pay a decent
living wage.
-Hope_
Rabbit
Brenda Peters wrote:
>
> naomi pardue <npa...@indiana.edu> wrote in article
> <649tfu$57u$1...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>...
> > (welfare reference partly snipped)
> > Neither are they in that situation
> > > because of some massive conspiracy to keep certain groups down. They
> are
> > > there because of the demise of real employment and economic
> opportunities
> > > for everyone
> >
>
> > are typically 50-100 pages of want ads. Lack of employment?
> >
That's the same kind of cause=effect reasoning that says that if my
paper only reports three armed robberies and not the five they reported
the previous day, it's obvious that crime rates are falling ...
The number of jobs advertised isn't indicative of the job market; the
statistics rely on how many people are trying to get those jobs. These
are two entirely different numbers.
Rabbit
naomi pardue
Brenda Peters (71543...@compuserve.com) wrote:
> > My local paper has 2-3 pages of want ads every day. In large cities there
> > are typically 50-100 pages of want ads. Lack of employment?
> > Naomi
> >
>
> resumes and got only three interviews, I don't see any abundance of
> employment. Yes, I did try for MOSTLY jobs that were "beneath" me because
> I needed the money. Jobs just aren't that easy to get, and if you have to
> suddenly pay for child care AND try to, oh, say, get food too, it just
> isn't going to be a happy situation for anyone.
The particular TYPE of job you want may be hard to find. The hours you
prefer may be hard to find. But if you were willing to flip burgers or
wait tables or punch a cash register 3rd shift at the 7-11 or clean rooms
in a hotel ... you could get A job.
Naomi
Ilene Bilenky
Well, guess what. Even if you lie and hide your education, if someone
sniffs you out as "too smart" or "overqualified", well, then, you can't
get a job "beneath you. Try it sometime and see.
Ilene B "worst job ever- the onion ring room at Mrs. Paul's Frozen Foods"
In article <64hphq$obm$5...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>, npa...@indiana.edu
Dorothea M. Rovner
In article <hopems-1011...@dial-70-14.ots.utexas.edu>,
hop...@mail.utexas.edu (Hope Munro Smith) wrote:
> Think about what you're saying for a minute. You're supporting
> the sterilization of people who in the view of dominant society
> have "no right" to reproduce -- e.g. drug addicts, welfare recipients,
> minorities, etc. In other words, you're just buying
> right back into the system, rather than rebelling against it.
Horsepuckey. Read my post again; I didn't support a damn thing.
I merely remarked that this woman's program could have some very
unfortunate consequences for her.
That said, I *do* think it is possible to lose one's so-called
"right" to reproduce. (On my really ornery days, I deny that there
is such a right in the first place; it really oughta be a privilege.)
Drug addiction and abusive behavior should be cause for forfeiture
of that right. (Possibly depending on the drug. My personal jury is
out on this one, although I tend to lean toward proscribing *all*
addictions, from caffeine on up, in reproducers.)
Poverty per se should not be a criterion, IMO, but a serious lack
of effort toward escaping poverty possibly should (although obviously
such a criterion would cause *immense* implementation headaches).
Minority status has *nothing whatever* to do with it, and I
challenge you to find one place where I say it does. I know of the
history of minority sterilization in this country, and I find it
thoroughly appalling. Those who protested it had every right to. It
was disgusting.
What I was saying, essentially, is that a contract is a contract
EXCEPT where it involves sterilization, it seems. Dipshits who have
gotten sterilized and have sued doctors over it later because "they
didn't think" have completely destroyed the landscape for young people
(like me) who really *do* want sterilization. (Note the difference
between this and the sterilization-of-minorities programs: the minorities
were *forcibly* sterilized, often *fraudulently* so, whereas the dipshits
I just mentioned usually had *signed consent forms* and had not been
coerced in any way.)
The woman who pays sterilized addicts is going to find herself in
the same legal morass, is what I was saying. And that's *all* I was
saying.