Con actually don't really like families after all

[heyjude]

MATERNITY LEAVE
'Pro Family' Conservative States Aren't Doing Squat to Make Life Easier for Families

By Erin Gloria Ryan, May 14, 2012 1:40 PM
SHARE

Conservative Americans demand their politicians spout sepia pleasantries about how America needs to experience a resurrection of "traditional family values." But when it comes down to setting policy, the US's most conservative states are actually the most hostile to the families to whom they so adamantly pay lip service. What gives?
It's no secret that the US government is doing a pretty crappy job of supporting families — it's the only advanced industrialized country in the world without guaranteed paid leave to care for a newborn — but what's interesting about a new analysis from the National Partnership for Women and Families is just how shitty full of "family values" voters are doing at, uh, valuing families. The analysis took into consideration what states did to improve over existing federal law, which prevents discrimination against pregnant women, provides parents with the option of taking unpaid medical leave from work without losing their jobs, and provides minimal accommodations to nursing women. Grades ranged from an an A- for California and Connecticut to F to states like Georgia, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia.

While there were some outliers, for the most part, heavily conservative states tended to receive poor marks. For example, Rick Santorum, a guy who practically pissed family values rhetoric, won the GOP primary contests in Alabama, Kansas, North Dakota, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Oklahoma. All but one of those states received failing grades from the NPWF (Tennessee got a D+).

Part of this apparent conservative anti-family policymaking pattern may be due to the fact that most "families" don't exactly adhere to the Norman Rockwell nuclear family fever dream of the modern American social conservative. More than half of births to women under 30 last year occurred outside of marriage, a big no-no for the evangelicals base that dictates social policy for Republicans. And in Texas, a growing proportion of new babies born every year are to Hispanic women, a terrifying stat for xenophobes. There's also the pesky conservative talking point that if women are paid to stay home to care for their newborns, women will just start having babies willy-nilly in order to get as many government benefits as possible, although anyone who believes that women hate working so much that they'd subject their bodies to 9 months of pregnancy followed by labor (rumored to be unpleasant) followed by several months of having a tiny baby (who, at the beginning of life, kind of resemble tiny, pooping, completely dependent purses) has a really skewed idea of what pregnancy is.

Parenthood is difficult enough without the added burden of having to take unpaid time off work in order to tend to a newborn baby. One solution, proposed by author Madeleine Kunin, is to rethink the way we position the idea of "paid family leave." In New Jersey and California, lawmakers simply wrapped parental leave into the definition of "temporary disability," so that the tax employees were already paying to support workers temporarily displaced from work increased only slightly. In New Jersey, this was referred to as a "family leave insurance," which is much more palatable to voters than "paid family leave," even though it does exactly the same thing. Giving mothers (and fathers) some economic breathing room leads to healthier families, which, if you believe that the family is the building block of society, would lead to a healthier society overall.

So, how can voters who call themselves "pro family" be so against the idea of helping families? Maybe there's some method to their madness; having a hardscrabble anecdote is essential to bolstering future political candidates' everyman credentials when they run for office on a "family values" platform.

[y4m]

The premise of this article is pretty irritating. Believing in families does not mean you believe in government support (or forced corporate support) for them.

[heyjude]

May 14, 2012 13:35:52 GMT -5 y4m said:

The premise of this article is pretty irritating. Believing in families does not mean you believe in government support (or forced corporate support) for them.

Then cons shouldn't beat their hairy chests over how sacrosanct families are. They cant have it both ways. Believing in families is more than just a fuzzy hallmark sentiment especially if you are a politician running for office.

[caden]

Ummm no, they believe families should support families so that the gov't doesn't have to assume a parental role. What a superficial analysis to suggest that if a person doesn't support a particular gov't policy they don't like, care, or support a broader issue.

[msmerymac]

So how does one "support families" without supporting government policy (monetary or not) that would support families?

[Deleted]

I tend to agree with jude. When it comes to the appropriate use of government policy, strategies like family leave and breastfeeding protections are the best way to promote family values. And these are rejected by cons because they interfere with the pro-business lobbies.

Which is fine, but you can't have it both ways.

[Deleted]

May 14, 2012 13:44:16 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

So how does one "support families" without supporting government policy (monetary or not) that would support families?

ban gay marriage?

[heyjude]

Here's an illustration. A politician can't honestly campaign on a "pro kitties" platform and then vote to defund local animal shelters.

[Deleted]

Dude, caden and y4m, you know I'm laughing at you for taking the bait, right?

LIBERALS KILL BABIES!!

[y4m]

The next logical point on this article's path would be that Social Cons don't support churches because they don't try to federally fund them.

Contrary to popular belief, there are other means for doing things aside from government. And not wanting the government to promote something doesn't mean you don't support society promoting it in general through other non-government institutions.

[Deleted]

LIBERALS HATE CHURCHES!

I can do this all day.

[heyjude]

May 14, 2012 13:48:46 GMT -5 y4m said:

The next logical point on this article's path would be that Social Cons don't support churches because they don't try to federally fund them.

Contrary to popular belief, there are other means for doing things aside from government. And not wanting the government to promote something doesn't mean you don't support society promoting it in general through other non-government institutions.

Then why make it a platform as you, uh, RUN for GOVERNMENT office?

[teflep]

May 14, 2012 13:35:52 GMT -5 y4m said:

The premise of this article is pretty irritating. Believing in families does not mean you believe in government support (or forced corporate support) for them.

I am thinking that it is from Jezebel leads to the slant here. I can't say our nation is very pro-family, but this article is not really getting to the root, imo.

[Deleted]

May 14, 2012 13:48:46 GMT -5 y4m said:

The next logical point on this article's path would be that
Social Cons don't support churches because they don't try to federally fund them.

Contrary to popular belief, there are other means for doing things aside from government. And not wanting the government to promote something doesn't mean you don't support society promoting it in general through other non-government institutions.

Right, but we aren't necessarily talking about paying women to get pregnant. Funding families just for the sake of bankrolling reproduction. Reasonable family leave laws and protection against discrimination are hardly a fair comparison.

[caden]

We don't believe in health insurance b/c we don't support UHC. Or clean water b/c we don't support the EPA. On and on we go. *dances with HAB & y4m*

[caden]

May 14, 2012 13:51:38 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

May 14, 2012 13:35:52 GMT -5 y4m said:

The premise of this article is pretty irritating. Believing in families does not mean you believe in government support (or forced corporate support) for them.

I think this is the fundamental difference between the conservative "family values" platform and the liberal "family values" platform.

I do think that until the conservative let go of the "pro-child" position they so rabidly espouse, they will continue to find themselves on the other end of this kind of criticism. Because it's one thing to be small government and think "It is not the governments job to support you while you raise your child." But it's a bit inconsistent, IMO, to have that opinion AND think it's the government's job to tell you have MUST have children.

Not really if said Social Con doesn't believe that birthing a child means a woman has to raise the child. Social Cons support adoption.

[heyjude]

May 14, 2012 13:52:09 GMT -5 caden said:

We don't believe in health insurance b/c we don't support UHC. Or clean water b/c we don't support the EPA. On and on we go. *dances with HAB & y4m*

These are only apt analogies to this discussion if cons run on a pro green or pro health insurance agenda.

[Deleted]

I'm eyerolling the idea that being pro-life =/= mandating everyone must have children.

[caden]

May 14, 2012 13:56:03 GMT -5 heyjude said:

May 14, 2012 13:52:09 GMT -5 caden said:

We don't believe in health insurance b/c we don't support UHC. Or clean water b/c we don't support the EPA. On and on we go. *dances with HAB & y4m*

These are only apt analogies to this discussion if cons run on a pro green or pro health insurance agenda.

Many R politicians do run on reform platforms. And again, one doesn't need to subscribe to a specific policy in order to care about a broader issue. It's a false dichotomy to say that one is pro-family if one believes in socially conservative family values and anti-family if one supports liberal values. And it's a false dichotomy to say the opposite.

[chichimi]

May 14, 2012 13:56:52 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

I'm eyerolling the idea that being pro-life =/= mandating everyone must have children.

Yes, that was a stretch. Prolife just = that you cannot kill the children that you have already created.

[druidp]

Ooooh, can I dance with the family-haters too? I will not rest until all families are fermenting in their living room without birth control, health care, liberal-based-yet-best-quality education and yelling to Mom in the kitchen (her rightful place!) for more deep fried foods that aren't organic.

[Deleted]

May 14, 2012 14:07:58 GMT -5 druidp said:

Ooooh, can I dance with the family-haters too? I will not rest until all families are fermenting in their living room without birth control, health care, liberal-based-yet-best-quality education and yelling to Mom in the kitchen (her rightful place!) for more deep fried foods that aren't organic.

::snort::

[caden]

Way to hyperbolize. HAB - you're right I knew better.

[heyjude]

Yes. Keep mocking and snorting. It does your position so many favors.

[msmerymac]

Don't worry, SBP, the free market will take care of women so government tax dollars don't have to! Companies will offer lactation rooms and paid family leave out of the goodness of their hearts, because they want to retain talented women. That's also why they'll pay them the same as men and why both men and women will get wonderful pensions and/or retirement plans. And why the government should never intervene. Also, everyone in our wonderful society is and/or will be qualified to get these types of jobs!

*snort* Because we're now into the 3rd century of the industrial revolution and in no place does unbridled capitalism have a history of doing anything of the sort. Hence why there are laws against child labor, et al.

I think THAT is what NB was referencing. Be pro-business/pro-laissez-faire capitalism all you want. But it SUCKS for workers and families. Good for revenue, though.

[druidp]

May 14, 2012 14:15:27 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Yes. Keep mocking and snorting. It does your position so many favors.

Oh, you wanted to engage in dialogue? But you sounded so definite in your statements that all conservatives really do hate families. Forgive me for not doing my best to change your mind, which is infallible.

Seriously. You don't want to debate. You want a rout. So sorry we preferred to dance around an obvious poke at an entire political party.

[caden]

May 14, 2012 14:15:27 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Yes. Keep mocking and snorting. It does your position so many favors.

In total contradistinction to your OP, which does so much to further critical thought and debate.

[chichimi]

May 14, 2012 14:15:27 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Yes. Keep mocking and snorting. It does your position so many favors.

We mock and snort because there are very intelligent posters that make outrageous claims when it comes to the prolife position. We do vote for policy change and I think the movement has been somewhat successful recently, to your (general, prochoice) dismay. So forgive us if we refuse to attempt another conversation that will be promptly forgotten.

[teflep]

May 14, 2012 14:15:27 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Yes. Keep mocking and snorting. It does your position so many favors.

Where did you get this rational thread title? Even the (unsourced) OP doesnt use this as its title. I think your title (whether yours or copied elsewhere) set this ship.

[druidp]

May 14, 2012 14:21:49 GMT -5 teflep said:

May 14, 2012 14:15:27 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Yes. Keep mocking and snorting. It does your position so many favors.

Where did you get this rational thread title? Even the (unsourced) OP doesnt use this as its title. I think your title (whether yours or copied elsewhere) set this ship.

Oooh, do I get to guess?