Land is EXPENSIVE...sow your seeds wisely!

My first landlord used my title phrase to describe her husband's child that he had before they were married. We were both married and expecting our first child and her husband's elder son came up in our conversation. We both chuckled at the truth of the statement. (English was not her first language so the contextual agreement is a bit off but you get the gist) Years later I began working as an attorney in Family Court and I would be amazed at the number of men and women that seem to have not only understood that concept but seem to be completely oblivious to the idea.

Men stood before me wondering "how in the world I got into this situation"? Women stood before me not understanding "Why he won't step up to the plate"? In my first years I was confused at their ignorance and utter surprise, as time passed it began to just piss me off. Now I am slightly sympathetic but only in the small Madeaesque sense that makes me want to slap the hell out of both parties.

Then along creeps Laurie Schrage's recent OpEd on "Force Fatherhood" http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/is-forced-fatherhood-fair/ a conversation I have had in many circles. Ms. Schrage raises some good points and there are many men who I'm sure applaud her. Those in the "I just met her at the club" " She was just a jump off/ side piece" and "we were just having fun" camps are giving Schrage a standing ovation as a woman that finally gets it and is standing up for them. However, if we  (as in legal systems and social norms) adopted Ms. Schrage's argument would it be the final nail in the coffin of our society? If men (and women) were to be free to have inconsequential sex not caring or responsible for any of the outcomes would our socialietal thread completely unravel as the "outcomes" (these children) grow and become human beings that in their essence and conception and subsequent raising/rearing were inconsequential?

I'm sure that's not what Schrage meant but as someone who has seen it and continues to see everyday the results of children that have been raised their whole lives as accidents, society will take the full brunt of individuals being allowed to abdicate their individual responsibility.

Alternatively, would women become more responsible about and with their bodies if they knew that their were no legal protections to obligate men to support "unintended children". In today's society many men don't support their children financially or emotionally but there are legal options women can utilize force a minimum amount of support. I have seen many women trying to use the courts to make a man participate in a childs life. I've never seen it be successful but hey, the options there.

So if we remove that option, would the woman think twice about having a child that they are completely responsible for with no hope of any support? Is it fair to put that type of pressure on a woman or is it the realistic reflection and proper fruition of repercussions that is a reflection of the position women already have in today's society? If a woman makes the final decision on whether to keep a child, as they should as it is their body, should they also bear the final and absolute costs of that decision?

Before this becomes an abortion debate as I can see it veering in that directions. It is my position and hope that women and men would make better decisions about who, when and why they have sex with someone as opposed to just how to deal with an unplanned pregnancy but that is for another day and another blog.

I can't say I agree with Schrage completely. Men can't divorce themselves from their Nether Regions. You know where you laid and who you laid with or at least you should. Whenever you lay down you open yourself up to the possibility of a child. So choose wisely. If you can't imagine being saddled with half this woman's dna mixing with yours and being linked to her  for at least 18 years financially and in other ways for life then you may want to find your jollies somewhere else. Unless we are becoming the human equivalent of feral cats.

I Call BS------- Food Insecurities is not a SNAP

I was innocently passing by the world wide web when it blew up over this #SNAPCHALLENGE. Cory Booker is doing it and many sites are abuzz. But hold up wait a minute. In the words of the card game of my youth:

   I.... CALL..... Bullsh*!

I do applaud Jennifer Turner and the UB SNAP FOOD CHALLENGE for bringing light to this issue. I just hope one thing that is underscored is not just about living on food stamps, because that in itself can be done. I'm not saying its not hard but it can be done and done well.

The issue is: FOOD INSECURITY I have invited some of my facebook and twitter friends who often talk about healthy lifestyles to join in the challenge and give their thoughts and opinions. I hope they participate and help shift the conversation.

 A few years ago I did a study and workshop with high school students on food insecurity and really what you are talking about with the SNAP Challenge is food insecurity. Just characterizing it as Food Stamp Challenge doesn't get to the heart of the issue, albeit it makes for a catchy name. Also anyone (whether for a challenge or not) using food stamps without properly qualifying runs afoul of quite a few laws. So even Mayor Booker saying he is going on Food Stamps for a week would be against the law. When he can just say he is limiting the budget and places where he can buy food to those within the SNAP guidelines.

 Admittedly not as great a headline but more based in fact. Also we have to look at the nutrition choices that are being made. Processed foods versus whole food items, staples versus quick fixes. When you tell me you can’t possibly imagine as one person figuring out how to eat for a week on $35.00, I think back on my grandmother who fed five children on the equivalent of less at the time. The shock of going by on so little is in part due to our mentality and the thought of going without processed foods and quick fixes like Starbucks. 

I’m not belittling the issue of food insecurity and I am ecstatic that it is something being talked about on such a grand scale. Well actually I wish we were talking about food insecurity and not “food stamps” I just pray that we don’t dwell in the hype of high profile individuals claiming they are “living on food stamps” that we lose the reality of those who in fact are.

 The problem is really all of the other factors that come with food stamps - what it means for families who qualify and have such low incomes, what type of shopping options are available, access to healthcare and other quality lifestyle choices like decent playgrounds. My concern is the stigma being just about food stamps and missing so many other items. Having to choose between food and rent or food and heat is really not about food stamps its about so many other problems. We could give folks hundreds of dollars in food stamps and still not resolve anything if they can't find decent housing, decent food choices, decent childcare and jobs with living wages.

 I myself will be taking up the challenge for a family of seven. I also want to show how it can be done positively and with healthy options. Let no one feel shamed because they are living on food stamps, in the projects or other less than desirable situations. Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.

 Don't just kick it....Politik it!