October 30th, 2009

MomsRising=Parents Deserve Special Rights!

Posted in Breeder Scams, Entitlement Breeders, Mommyists

A rather reasonable friend of mine, who has kids but I wouldn’t consider a “breeder,” mentioned something about the website “MomsRising” to me recently. I’ve heard mention of it a couple of times before, but never checked it out, for fear it was one of those breederiffic mommy-feel-good websites. But when this reasonable friend mentioned it, I thought I might check it out. Contrary to popular belief, I don’t hate everything parent/kid related, and I actually clicked the link thinking I’d find something to rave about.

That was a mistake. It is a (cheezy and possibly ineffective) political lobbying site for breederiffic parents who want “special” rights, not equal rights.

The first thing you see on the main page says:

Tell your favorite Mom she’s a mother of the year! Your favorite mom deserves national recognition! Get her on the national news, thanked by President Obama, and envied by Angelina Jolie.

Are you kidding me? The first thing they want mommies to see on the site is, “You deserve a national award!” You can’t tell me they don’t have self-esteem issues if the big mommy sites primary reason for existence is to promote that shit. As if our government doesn’t have better things to do than to make some bimbo appease her self-esteem issues.

Also on the front page:

Let’s Get Real Healthcare Reform Now!We can’t afford to miss this opportunity to reform our broken healthcare system.Send a letter to Congress now demanding real healthcare reform for families

See that? Healtcare reform for FAMILIES. Fuck everyone else. Further in you’ll see they wan flexible work arrangements for PARENTS – no one else. Say what you will about childfree, but when we talk about reforms, we talk about making things fair for everyone, while parenting sites talk about making things “fair” for THEMSELVES only. Remind me which group is the selfish one again?

They also want:

Clear and independent universal television rating system that allows for choice in the home.

Wait a god-damned minute! They already have television rating systems that “allow for choice in the home.” Every show comes on with a freakin’ rating! Also, the TVs, the cable boxes, and the DVR boxes ALL have parental controls on them. And remember folks, they do not even have to have TVs in the home, or they can have a TV in a locked room or cabinet to keep the kids away from them. JFC what the hell more do these damn entitlement-minded mommies want? Little brown slaves living in the home to monitor the kids and the TV for them?! How can these morons STILL be complaining about this issue?!!

Safe, educational opportunities for children after the school doors close.

This also drives me crazy, as there are tons of activities for youth – parents just invent 500 excuses why not to use them. Every community I’ve lived in has had multiple forms of youth centers and activities, even the small town I used to live in. There were at least 3 community youth centers I can think of, but half the time they were empty because no one would make use of them. Who’s fault is that? While I can’t speak for every single community, I’d guess that most communities have these activities. The moms just won’t make use of them so they have no right to bitch about it.

And of course they are mooing about “Paycheck Fairness Act” which basically translates to:

I want to get paid as much as everyone else in the workplace, probably more, because I have kids to support. I deserve a paid year off every other year to have a baby and bond with it, and I want additional sick days from my non-parent coworkers since I need more sick days to take time off when my kids are sick, too. When I’m pregnant, I’ll need extra sick days for all my doctors appointments, as well. I want first pick of all vacation time off, because I have to work it around my kids’ school schedule and everyone else can just suck it. Also, I want a flexible work schedule so I can take off whenever it’s convenient for me and my kids. I never want to work late or weekends or holidays (gotta have family time!) – leave that to my childless coworkers – they don’t deserve the good work schedules! In fact, I should be able to work from home while playing with my kids. My family will always come first! AND I want promotions just as quickly as everyone else, even if I’m out of the office 60% more than the rest of them and don’t have nearly the experience since I’ve spent most of my career neglecting work in favor of being a mommy.

I’m SO sick of them complaining about getting paid less than other workers when they do less work. Yea, I know there are exceptions – women who are just as dedicated at work as the rest of us, but those are the ones who are likely making as much as the rest of us do. The ones who have a huge pay gap have probably earned that pay gap by doing half of the work when they are at work, taking more time off than anyone else, and never working overtime shifts – in other words, they deserve a fraction of the pay.

The bottom line is these women believe they deserve a paycheck for breeding and the company should just have extra funds lying around to give them money to stay home for a year while having to pay someone else to do their job. I’m not a fan of pure capitalism, but I have to side with the companies here. Why should they have to pay two people to do a job while one sits at home blogging about baby puke for a year? Or worse, why should the company pay someone to sit at home blogging about diaper blowouts while the rest of her coworkers are shafted having to take up her workload in addition to their own because the company can’t afford to pay two people for that job. And I don’t want to pay higher taxes so mommies can scam the system this way and make the government pay them to sit at home blogging! And then, this mommy thinks after coming back from her year’s vacation she should get the next promotion going around because she “deserves” it. How did she earn the promotion while sitting at home not working?!

(No, they didn’t actually say THAT, but that’s pretty much what they mean!)

Maybe I’d have more respect for mommies (and MomsRising) if they used ANY common sense, had ANY sense of fairness and dropped the entitlement “I want it so I should get it I’m a mom!” bullshit.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Registered uses may rate posts

Previous Rant: « Looking for NaNoWriMo writing buddies?

Next Rant: Get therapy not kids! »

1. Comment by Amy — October 31, 2009 at 2:31 am

   Why is it that when US citizens demand affordable, universal health care it’s derided as “socialism,” but when breeders whine for all sorts of benefits (of the type that one would find in France or Scandinavia, i.e., more socialist countries) nobody has the same reaction–they’re just poor beleaguered parents. If I’m a socialist for wanting affordable, universal health care, then dammit, these breeders are socialists as well.

2. Comment by Jenny — November 1, 2009 at 10:35 am

   Actually, I think as far as take home pay that parents make MORE than the childless. This is true with unemployment benefits as well. My previous employer laid off 15% of the entire work force, which included me. Since I have no children my unemployment is 50% of my original salary. If I were to have had 1-2 children it would have been 75%. If I would have had 3 or more children it would have been 90%. There was an administrative assistant that got laid off the same time as me and now she is actually bringing home MORE money from unemployement than I am because she has four kids. While my salary was higher than hers while we were working our take home pay was actually within 100 dollars of each other because she basically paid no taxes because of all of her kids. I mean COME ON! How much more do these people want? I paid higher taxes to make up for her not paying anything AND then when we get laid off I get LESS money from the government than she does? This country is bass ackwards.

3. Comment by Selenite — November 1, 2009 at 2:49 pm

   Cute. They want to deliberately screw the rest of us over in the work place and demand preferential treatment for it. Those of us unburdened with children exist only to pick up their tab at their convenience. Would this bint ever deign to consider filling in for one of those expendable childless coworkers if they were injured or had to a sick relative? I just love how universal healthcare is all out THEM. Fuck students, fuck the elderly, fuck the unemployed. Any breeder who claims that spawning makes you less selfish is a liar. What was once “me, me ME!” has simply morphed into “mine, mine, MINE!”

   Don’t even think that they wouldn’t screw each other over if it meant free drink boxes for the kiddies.

4. Comment by deegee — November 2, 2009 at 8:36 am

   I am sure I have mentioned this before, but the current system already violates the “equal pay for equal work” concept from the employer subsidy portion of a company’s group health plan. That is, if a company is paying, say, 50% or 75% of an employee’s group health premiums, that subsidy often includes premiums paid for the covered employee’s nonworking spouse and/or kids. This subsidy is tax-free and the employee-paid portion is tax-deductible, further aggravating the tax differential between those with children and those without.

   This means an employee’s total compensation when defined as salary + group health subsidy ends up paying a married and/or childed employee more than one who is single and/or childless(free) even though they do the same work. And remember, none of these additional covered people contribute to the bottom line of the company.

   One good way to eliminate this inequity is to require everyone other than the covered employee or spouse (if spouse happens to work for the same company) pay 100% of the premiums.

   This became a big issue for me last year when I became ineligible for group health coverage after I reduced my work hours. My company told me it was not “fiscally responsible” to offer coverage to me because I was now lumped in with a few others (all in their 60s) who worked few hours but still contributed to the company’s bottom line. Yet the same company offered greatly subsidized group health coverage to hundreds of people (i.e. nonworking spouses and children) who contributed ZERO to the company’s bottom line.

   It was a secondary reason for my leaving the company one year ago and retiring at the age of 45.

5. Comment by francesbean — November 9, 2009 at 3:44 pm

   http://www.babble.com/Feedback/FeedbackMiddle1Top1.aspx?feedbackItemId=11566&returnTarget=/disappearing-family/index2.aspx I thought of this site when I read the article linked above.

6. Comment by Adrianna — November 20, 2009 at 10:59 pm

   I can’t tell you how sick I am of the entitlement that many parents have, and I’m even more sick of childfree people who defend them. After all, we have to protect the children! (Never mind that it’s the parents’ job to “protect” them, not mine.)

   I’m totally in favor of reasonable accomodations for both parents and nonparents, especially if something unfortunate happens. But I think it’s high time people started being responsible for themselves and their own children. We are talking about people who literally want taxpayers to pay for everything and co-workers to do everything! Enough with expecting the government, society, taxpayers, etc. to do your goddamn job!

7. Comment by La Femme Nikita — November 21, 2009 at 7:11 pm

   Please keep in mind that only six weeks of maternity leave is covered under short-term disability, and if the business is large enough extended leave is available up to only twelve weeks under the family medical leave act, both of which are available to all employees. Also keep in mind that leave taken under FMLA is unpaid leave, so many companies are not paying two people while a new mom is out on maternity leave blogging about her baby’s poop. Plus, FMLA is not available to all, only to employees of companies with 50+ employees. Businesses smaller than that may choose to offer FMLA to their employees but they are not required to do so.

   And also keep in mind that children ARE our financial future… or at least the future of our social security checks. Without the next generation, our retirement benefits will not be there.

8. Comment by Phoena — November 21, 2009 at 7:46 pm

   Please keep in mind I didn’t mention FLMA! I *know* FMLA is not a year — I was talking about their wishles of what they THINK they deserve – a year’s paid leave paid for by the rest of us, since they don’t think they should have to pay their own way.

   And if your point is that the rest of us OWE people who have kids money to raise their kids since their kids will pay our social security some day… Ug. So I’m paying into social security (so I can get some back someday) but I also have to pay for them to raise their kids (heaven forbid they have to do it, right?). IOW, I’m paying twice and getting back once and you actually think that’s fair?

   I don’t like the idea of social security anyway. I think we should save our own money for retirement and leave everyone else out of it.

9. Comment by Childfreeeee — November 22, 2009 at 6:37 pm

   SING IT, sister. The entitlement of parents in the workplace just astounds me. Do less work, get more entitlements. Makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it?

   Our culture still operates under the belief system that people should be rewarded for reproducing and this is across the board.

   The only way this will change is if more people opt out of parenthood. Until our numbers get bigger, our needs will not be considered.

10. Comment by CrabCake — November 22, 2009 at 9:29 pm

    Nikita, speak for yourself. “Our” retirement benefits? I’m not planning on Social Security. If it’s there, great. If not, I’m working hard to have a decent retirement for myself. Lose that “argument” already.

    As for all the whining about FMLA, parents should take their own employment situation into consideration before breeding. Seems obvious, but then there are some like you who imply it shouldn’t matter, and the rest of us should subsidize someone’s else’s decision to breed. In a nutshell….FUCK THAT.

11. Comment by Adrianna — November 23, 2009 at 12:10 pm

    I’d be 100% in favor of the FMLA if it applied to ALL families. If I had to take care of my elderly mother, you would bet I’d go to hell and back to fight for the right to take care of her and keep my job. Yes, that’s right. I have a dependent that I will one day support, so enough with all the “OMG! You’re SO selfish! You have no responsibilities!”

12. Comment by deegee — November 23, 2009 at 12:36 pm

    Nikita, saying that we need to keep breeding to maintain Social Security is like saying Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme would not have collapsed if he had been able to keep finding (a.k.a. “breeding”) new investors to pay off the earlier ones.

    I would love to have back the (~2/3) portion of my SS taxes which went to previous retirees in exchange for opting out of the retirement portion (NOT disability, because that covers me for an UNforseen event, not the very PREDICTABLE one of simply growing old) of the system. But I was forced to pay for other people’s retirement, so having others who follow me, whether they are my kids or not, is not unreasonable. Will the system collapse at collection time like Madoff’s did, I hope not.

13. Comment by Amber — November 23, 2009 at 5:39 pm

    http://www.cracked.com/article/195_7-things-good-parents-do-that-screw-kids-up-life_p2

    Made me think of you. Heh. If you’re scared of the backlash from linking it, just delete my comment, I’ll understand.

14. Comment by Phoena — November 23, 2009 at 7:07 pm

    Thanks for that site, Amber. It gave me some good material!

15. Comment by LoveToLurk — November 24, 2009 at 8:53 am

    I would love to opt out of social security, for two reasons. Last time I recieved my yearly SS statement in the mail there was a little blurb stating that by the time people in my age group “come of age” the benefits will only be $0.73 of every dollar that we’ve put in. I’m no financial genius, but it seems to me that I could be putting that money in my own bank account and be earning interest, thereby getting more $$ back on the dollar, not less.

16. Comment by LoveToLurk — November 24, 2009 at 8:57 am

    Sorry, it’s me again. I screwed up.
    The second reason is that I wouldn’t have a problem giving to SS if it was only about supporting the elderly. But it’s not. Every breeder with a willing doctor to present them with some sort of diagnosis for their sprog (awwtism comes to mind) has their hands in the SS pot. I pay enough to support them with taxes. I don’t need them taking a chunk of my retirement funds too.

17. Comment by deegee — November 24, 2009 at 5:59 pm

    LoveToLurk, that $0.73 on the dollar figure you hear about Social Security refers to the percentage (~73%) of promised benefits the system can pay out after it exhausts its cashless “trust fund” in about 30 years. I agree that this is a depressing figure, just not quite the one you thought it was.

    The figures I have heard over the years with respect to an implied rate of return for SS depends on your age, gender, and income to be replaced by SS. That implied rate of return ranges from a small minus to a small plus, either of which can be exceeded with conservative investments.

18. Comment by Merlyn — February 21, 2010 at 10:31 am

    For the information of Nikita and all the diapered asskissers out there–we PAY for our own retirement out of the tax removed from each paycheck during our working lives. So no one’s brat (AKA “da fyootchur”)is going to pay a damn cent of any social security I may recieve.

    Also Social Security recipients have to file/pay taxes on their Social Security Income and you can be damn sure some of that goes to breeders and their spawn. We subsidise you enough! Start paying your own way.

    Breeders need no further entitlements–they deserve a good hard kick in the ass.

19. Comment by Phoena — February 21, 2010 at 11:08 am

    Merlyn – also, you wouldn’t believe how many parents are trying to get their kids on social security disability these days. What are they disabled from, preschool? If people want to complain that we are somehow “drains on society” what about all these kids who, in many cases, aren’t that freakin’ disabled, and who will never contribute to social security.

20. Comment by Mariezee — February 22, 2010 at 10:31 pm

    I can dig what you all are saying here. I appear childless, but really I believe I am childfree…I hear no clock ticking and I am a proponent of using at least 2 forms of birth control at a time. I’m 39 and looking forward to starting a new phase in my life, in which I envision teaching and mentoring kids, but not having any. There are plenty of kids already here who can use teaching and mentoring!

    Anyway, my comment to this thread indeed has to do with my annoyance to the “special” demands and treatment of parents…I am especially sensitive to this as I am the primary caretaker of my Mom. She is my legal dependent. In theory, the same types of rules should apply to having her as my dependent as would a child. But of course they don’t. And forget about getting her on my insurance!

    I got fired from my job because I pissed off the president of the company when he called me into his office to berate me for the time I had taken off to take my Mom to Dr’s appointments (which was very little time, most of it made up, and which I had pre-arranged). I had to say, look, I am protected by Federal Labor Law (as relates to FMLA, which I had not even invoked, as I was still using vacation to help my Mom). Wow, did that get him. I knew my days were numbered. Earlier, my boss had told me there would be consequences if I didn’t find someone else to help my Mom get ready for surgery.

    Can you even imagine the damage I could wreak on that company, and how rich I would be, if someone had said, “you had better not get pregnant and miss any work, or there will be consequences?” And, as if I chose for Mom to be disabled and need help. Most moms chose to be moms. Gals who worked down the hall from me sure did.

    I do honor parents, it is a hugely important job (but so few actually do it well!!), but why are they more honored than other kinds of caretakers and other contributors to society??

21. Comment by Phoena — April 11, 2010 at 2:46 pm

    Mariezee,

    Thank you for sharing your story with us. You’re right about how people seem to think it’s okay to have unlimited time off for kids, but to hell
    with you if you have other family members who need help! All too often when we complain of special help parents get for having kids, they say, “Well, you’d get special help if you had a family member to take care of,” but it isn’t the same.

    I’m sorry your employer was such a dick to you and would never have treated you that way if you’d had a child. I hope you have found a better job!

Leave a comment