Sister Wives in NYTimes (Kody to challenge law?)

[DamnPrecious]

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. Welfare, food stamps, etc are there to help people who have fallen on hard times. I don't have an issue with that, whether you are single, married, or polygamous. However, if you need assistance, STOP HAVING MORE KIDS. If you can't take care of the kids you already have, DON'T HAVE ANY MORE.

Part of the fault is with the system- we have all heard of welfare queens who keep on having more kids to increase their payments. That should be changed, because as it stands, there is actually an incentive to have more kids.

The Browns were already on thin financial ice when Kody decided to add a 4th wife with 3 kids of her own, and no job. Then they left their jobs to move to a state with really high unemployment rates, and decided to have yet another baby. I know TLC pays them, but 4 houses, and 17 kids costs a lot of money. Not to mention AC for 4 homes in the Las Vegas summer.

If they want to be polygamists, fine. If they are looking for public assistance to supplement their incomes that's not fine.

Okay. :D I agree with that.

[Purple]

He's legally married to Meri. Who I'm still not convinced believes in this 100% for herself, more like this is what her religion taught her so she must do it. But I also don't see her leaving once Mariah goes off to college or marries on her own. She's too emotionally invested in all of the other kids.

Christine believes in this hook, line, and sinker, same with Robyn. Janelle....well, I think it works for her because she likes her time to herself.

Me - just the thought of him coming near me after sleeping with 3 other women would just squick me out. On top of him squicking me out already! lol

Is Meri the first wife?

If this is all because he lacked the brainpower to figure out that he couldn't remain legally married to her while pursuing his polygamous ambitions, then he brought it entirely on himself, and I have no sympathy. Yeah, it's a stupid law, but it's easy enough to follow, and he apparently just couldn't be bothered.

[JenniferJuniper]

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. Welfare, food stamps, etc are there to help people who have fallen on hard times. I don't have an issue with that, whether you are single, married, or polygamous. However, if you need assistance, STOP HAVING MORE KIDS. If you can't take care of the kids you already have, DON'T HAVE ANY MORE.

Part of the fault is with the system- we have all heard of welfare queens who keep on having more kids to increase their payments. That should be changed, because as it stands, there is actually an incentive to have more kids.

The Browns were already on thin financial ice when Kody decided to add a 4th wife with 3 kids of her own, and no job. Then they left their jobs to move to a state with really high unemployment rates, and decided to have yet another baby. I know TLC pays them, but 4 houses, and 17 kids costs a lot of money. Not to mention AC for 4 homes in the Las Vegas summer.

If they want to be polygamists, fine. If they are looking for public assistance to supplement their incomes that's not fine.

Problem is, what are you going to do about it? Men have the legal right to go about and father as many children with as many women as they want, whether they stick around or not. How do you stop it? Put everyone's DNA in a database and start forcibly sterilizing men after a certain number of children? Cut off food stamps to kids with too many siblings?

I'm not so sure I buy the "Welfare queen" stereotype either. I'm sure it happens, but I doubt it's as prevalent - or as intentional - as some would like us to believe. Kids are just way too much trouble and expense for such a relatively limited benefit.

Don't get me wrong, I think Kody and men like him are self-centered pigs and his wives and women like them must have more than a few screws loose. But I'm not sure how we prevent what they are doing without going down paths we don't want travel.

Fortunately, not many would find their lifestyle appealing.

[Sola]

Kody does NOT support his family. He and all of his wives have filed for bankruptcy in the past.

Oh I didn't know that! That's a different matter then. I have no problems with people having a shit load of kids, but if you need government assistance to keep having kid after kid then you need to stop. (as a disclaimer I have no problems with poor people having kids, just keep the family small)

[valsa]

Any living arrangements consenting adults want to engage in is fine with me provided the children are safe and cared for. One legal marriage at a time, however.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was talking about the living arrangements, not legal marriages.

I could be wrong, but wan't Kody able to put all of the kids on his employer's health insurance plan as dependants because they were living in the same household with him? If so, I could see this as being somewhat unfair if the plan - like many -doesn't charge an extra premium past a certain number of dependants.

I think you can list any kids of your's as dependents, not just the ones living with you. My father was court ordered to leave me on his health insurance when my parents divorced, even though I didn't live with him or even have overnight visits.

[Sola]

I'm going play devils advocate. Would you say the same thing to monogamous couples or single parents? Are they their children the only ones worthy of it?

I don't have a dog in this fight, other than family is family.

For me, I have no problems with people being on assistance. I have no problems with people on assistance having a kid or two when ON assistance (such as maybe a disabled couple on assistance). I do have problems with people having kid after kid after kid and having a huge family while on assistance the whole time. People who use the excuse of 'well it's not worth my while working with all these kids'. That annoys the hell out of me. Use the system when help is needed, just don't milk it.

Just my two penneth.

[valsa]

I have no problems with people on assistance having a kid or two when ON assistance (such as maybe a disabled couple on assistance). I do have problems with people having kid after kid after kid and having a huge family while on assistance the whole time.

See, I don't see a real difference between these two scenerios. Having a kid is not a right and having one when you cannot afford it is, in my opinion, wrong. What's the difference between a disabled couple on assistance having two kids they can't afford and a "welfare queen" having two or three kids she can't afford?

[JenniferJuniper]

I think you can list any kids of your's as dependents, not just the ones living with you. My father was court ordered to leave me on his health insurance when my parents divorced, even though I didn't live with him or even have overnight visits.

The difference is your father had been legally married to and then legally divorced from your mother. Kody has never been legally married to most of the kids' mothers and if he wasn't living with the kids, I'm not sure they could be considered his dependants for purposes of insurance.

[valsa]

The difference is your father had been legally married to and then legally divorced from your mother. Kody has never been legally married to most of the kids' mothers and if he wasn't living with the kids, I'm not sure they could be considered his dependants for purposes of insurance.

I don't believe the definition of "dependent" for insurance has anything to do with marriage, I believe they go by the tax definition of "dependent" (iirc, it's a child you provide more than half the income for)

[DamnPrecious]

I don't know if it's just where I live, but the "welfare queen" is not a myth. It's actually really common, I could name ten people off the top of my head without thinking.

[Purple]

See, I don't see a real difference between these two scenerios. Having a kid is not a right and having one when you cannot afford it is, in my opinion, wrong. What's the difference between a disabled couple on assistance having two kids they can't afford and a "welfare queen" having two or three kids she can't afford?

I agree with you that having a kid irrespective of one's ability to care for it isn't a right, and that neither situation is ok. However, I do see a big difference:

In most cases, people on disability have no choice about their condition, and are disabled through no fault of their own. However, many if not most non-disabled 'welfare queens' are in that situation as a result of their own choices. If they want a kid, they're no less capable than anyone else of getting a job and paying for it. If they're genuinely incapable of working, then they're disabled by definition. Welfare, TANF, food stamps, and similar programs were originally intended to be a temporary safety net for someone to use while they took action to pull themselves out of poverty, not a long-term alternative to working for a living. Adding another child into the mix is obviously not going to help a family get out of poverty, which is why many consider it to be an abuse of the system.

[JenniferJuniper]

I don't know if it's just where I live, but the "welfare queen" is not a myth. It's actually really common, I could name ten people off the top of my head without thinking.

So these 10 women all keep going through pregnancy and labor because they want some extra food stamps? And they've actually told you this?

The government stats: "The average monthly number of TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) families was 3,176,000 in fiscal year (FY) 1998. The estimated total number of TANF recipients was 2,631,000 adults and 6,273,000 children. The average number of persons in TANF families was 2.8 persons. The TANF families averaged 2 recipient children, which remained unchanged. Two in five families had only one child. One in 10 families had more than three children."

[valsa]

In most cases, people on disability have no choice about their condition, and are disabled through no fault of their own.

Many people in the current economy can't get a job through no fault of their own. Does that mean it's okay for them to have more kids even while on assistance?

If anything, depending on which assistance programs we're talking about, the disabled couple may actually be worse than the "welfare queen". The welfare queen has the ablity to get off of assistance and support her own children. The disabiled couple may never have the ability to support their own children.

Either way, whether it's your (general "your") "fault" you're on assistance or not- don't have kids when you can't afford them.

[Alecto]

The difference between being on disability versus public assistance as far as perception is that most people who are on disability paid into the Social Security system while working, and it is different from public aid because that comes from a more general fund.

I am not saying it is correct, but in my experience, that tends to be the difference in perception of why people tend to not bitch as much about people on disability versus public assistance.

[JenniferJuniper]

I think most people would agree that it's not good to have kids if you can't afford them (or nuture them, as is the case with certain parents we've come to know).

The question is, how do we as a society prevent that happening without A) infringing on civil liberties or B) punishing innocent kids?

[Purple]

Many people in the current economy can't get a job through no fault of their own. Does that mean it's okay for them to have more kids even while on assistance?

If anything, depending on which assistance programs we're talking about, the disabled couple may actually be worse than the "welfare queen". The welfare queen has the ablity to get off of assistance and support her own children. The disabiled couple may never have the ability to support their own children.

Either way, whether it's your (general "your") "fault" you're on assistance or not- don't have kids when you can't afford them.

I said I didn't think either is ok. However, it's natural to feel more sympathy for someone who's genuinely done all they can than for someone who's perfectly capable of supporting themself and their kids, but chooses not to because they'd rather get a free ride. That may not apply to everyone on welfare in the current economy, but long-term, it's a real difference between the two groups. I don't think you'll find much sympathy for someone who is unemployed 'through no fault of their own', but chooses to have a child that they know perfectly well they can't support. If they're really blameless in the situation, then they'll have no trouble finding work when things pick back up in a year or so, and they should wait until then to have a kid.

I have the rather unpopular opinion that government assistance should be contingent on use of long-term birth control like Depo. Those who are using the programs as they're intended to be used will have no problem with that. The only drawback is that there's no equivalent for men.

[valsa]

The difference between being on disability versus public assistance as far as perception is that most people who are on disability paid into the Social Security system while working, and it is different from public aid because that comes from a more general fund.

I don't know about the original person who brought it up but I wasn't talking about people on disability. I don't have a problem with people on disability having kids. I do have a problem with people who are on disability, who then get other assistance due to being low-income because they're on disability, who have kids.

[valsa]

The question is, how do we as a society prevent that happening without A) infringing on civil liberties or B) punishing innocent kids?

I don't think we can. Hell, in my area, they can't even make people on public assistance undergo drug testing, let alone try anything else.

I have the rather unpopular opinion that government assistance should be contingent on use of long-term birth control like Depo

Actually, I'm of a similar opinion so you'll get no crap from me about it.

[DamnPrecious]

So these 10 women all keep going through pregnancy and labor because they want some extra food stamps? And they've actually told you this?

The government stats: "The average monthly number of TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) families was 3,176,000 in fiscal year (FY) 1998. The estimated total number of TANF recipients was 2,631,000 adults and 6,273,000 children. The average number of persons in TANF families was 2.8 persons. The TANF families averaged 2 recipient children, which remained unchanged. Two in five families had only one child. One in 10 families had more than three children."

I'm not talking about popping out child after child to get the TANF. Here is an example of what goes on. We'll call her Mary. I know Mary fairly well.

She lives in Section 8 housing. She won't work because they charge rent if you. If you don't work, you also get some money to pay utilites. She sells her food stamps for money. She was on TANF until the father of her child had starting paying support. Let's people live in her apartment without notifying the people they are living there. If she did they would base rent off their paycheck (which usually they won't work either, but some have).

I know all this for fact, because she tells me. I know a number of people in the complex he do the same thing. Also, I have extended family who do this as well. They do not see anything that's wrong with it.

ETA: I can't think of one person who uses birth control.

[deelaem]

Okay... I don't watch the show, so forgive my question. What is his form of Misogyny? From what I have read he is an idiot, yes, but I don't particularly see him being hateful towards women, or anyone really.

Bigamy is misogyny in action. He has four wives that he lords over, they have put aside their feelings of loneliness and jealousy so he can have as many wives as it takes to hold up his saggy ego. In my opinion (before I get jumped on) he's a big phony who really isn't so sweet to his wives. There are so few female bigamists as to not even be noticeable, so obviously it's men who feel that they are entitled to ask women to put aside their needs and the fact that they deserve to put #1 in a man's life. This douche will probably argue that he "loves" women. But the fact is that he's getting his jollies as well as a pile of money out of exploiting them and his children. The mistreatment of women is quite often hidden behind supposed "nice guys".

[Sola]

See, I don't see a real difference between these two scenerios. Having a kid is not a right and having one when you cannot afford it is, in my opinion, wrong. What's the difference between a disabled couple on assistance having two kids they can't afford and a "welfare queen" having two or three kids she can't afford?

I'm not talking about people who have no intention of working. I'm talking about people who genuinely can't, are trying their best to find work they can do. My image of 'welfare queen' is someone who keeps popping kid after kid out, generally a single parent (and this is NOT knocking single parents) simply because popping another kid out is easier than getting a job.

I do not think that having children should be a privileged of the able bodied. If someone genuinely wants to work, but cannot find a job they can do with their limitations, should I really be the one to tell them they shouldn't have a family? (by that I mean at the most a couple of kids)

(Another point here is the UK system; all social security benefits here from means tested income replacement to disability financial support come out of the one pot.)

[valsa]

Bigamy is misogyny in action.

I disagree. No one is forcing his wives to stay in that situation. They've consented to the situation and to his other wives.

I'm reminded of the people who want to force Muslim women to not wear veils- forcing them to not wear veils is no different than forcing them to wear veils. I don't see how your ignoring the sister wives consent is any different than Kody would be if he ignored their lack of consent.

[roddma]

As much as I dislike the Duggars, at least they can support their kids without government assistance.

That depends on how one looks at it. While true they aren't on gov assistance Im sure donations of gifts, time, and money helped along the way. And their main source of 'welfare' is TLC. The problem is not all Quiverfull families are like the Duggars. If the couple divorces, one dies, or becomes disabled, the wife has to scramble and find work usually without job skills and sometimes that won't be enough to keep the family afloat. This isn't meaning to use welfare and food stamps as a way of life.

Kody comes across as smug from what I have seen. Polygamy is another way for a man to have his cake and eat it too. I cant get why women would settle for less in monogamy or polygamy. At least they can find someone who actually works and supports his own.

[valsa]

I do not think that having children should be a privileged of the able bodied.

Niether do I. If someone, or a couple, can support their children from the money they get from disability, more power to them. However, having children should be the privilege of only those who can afford to care for them. If you cannot care for yourself or the children you currently have without financial assistance from welfare or foodstamps, etc- you cannot afford to have a(nother) child.

[3 is enough]

I have the rather unpopular opinion that government assistance should be contingent on use of long-term birth control like Depo. Those who are using the programs as they're intended to be used will have no problem with that. The only drawback is that there's no equivalent for men.

Agreed.