There is much sociological literature on the fact that people find it easier to give "to their own kind", then to people they consider "other". Middle class tax payers have a hard time identifying with, or imagining their children as, unwed inner city mothers- therefore there is great reluctance to support these women in any style that might be considered "indulgent"- which guarantees they live in the margins, and are made to know they live there.
When you live "outside" of society, how do you care for that society? When rejected as a child, how do you ever make peace? In Scandinavian countries, where there is no stigma, unwed mothers and their children are as accepted as any other members of society.
I think you can read many posts on SI that blame poor inner city residents for being poor inner city residents. The problem with this, as I see it, is that these folks are much more the victims of their own circumstances than they are the cause of their circumstances. No one, I think, would choose to be poor and unmarried in the inner city. Ignorance and the lack of options to remedy that ignorance, as well as a lack of will brought on by the stifling atmosphere of the inner city with its dismal climate of failure, all suck the life out of our inner city youngsters. With a real investment in the children of the inner city I think the cycle could be broken, but it would take an honest commitment, and a large long term commitment, not just speechifying and empty promises. Considering what we are willing to spend in Iraq, and the time frame we are now looking at, I find it very sad we will not make a similar commitment to America's children- but I guarantee you, we won't. They are still "the other" and not worth saving. Too bad there aren't some weapons of mass destruction in the inner city, because maybe we would go in and liberate the folks who live there, and improve their infrastructure, which is crumbling. |
