Anti-childfree charities

[dust_mote]

I'm sure you've encountered them before. March of Dimes, WIC (Women Infants and Children), "Save the Children", "Make a Wish" foundation. WIC in particular I've even seen them put up huge booths in public buildings like libraries, explaining how they'll help you out if you want to make a child. Does anyone know any dirt on these organizations? I

Comments

[dust_mote]

I guess anti-childfree was a bad way to put it. Childfree is already a negative definition, so anti-childfree is like saying "not not having children".

I think there are degrees of suffering, and that wealth is obviously not equitably distributed in this world. So I do get suspicious when I see a charity with a highly successful and clearly well funded propaganda campaign, whether it's saving teh chitlins, or taking care of people with cancer. I only begrudge help for anybody who's suffering when doing so also increases my own suffering.

And though it seems obvious, I don't think helping children is the best way to solve the problems that children face. In many cases the children can't be left well enough alone, and often you can help children, but have little effect on the overall situation. Programs that propose ways to fix the system in order to more enable children to succeed (without damaging other people's success), those I can get behind. But programs that throw money or food at children, pay for their institutionalization,

[themachinestops]

When I was a child, daycare taught you how to play with dolls and blocks and board games and then you were just bored stiff. They didn't offer useful things like how to weld or how to repair a furnace, pretty much they were just a place to toss your kids to give you a moment to breathe without them.

Ah, a humor-joke. Has potential, but sloppy execution. I give it a 2.7.

[dncingmalkavian]

And though it seems obvious, I don't think helping children is the best way to solve the problems that children face.

What, then, do you propose we do? I read this passage once in an excellent historical novel: "Don't give a man a penny; he may only take it to an alehouse, get drunk, and go home to beat his wife. Better to give him the bread; better yet to give the bread to his children." Good advice, that.

In many cases the children can't be left well enough alone, and often you can help children, but have little effect on the overall situation. Programs that propose ways to fix the system in order to more enable children to succeed (without damaging other people's success), those I can get behind.Everyone has to give a little and lose a little for society as a whole to be successful. I don't regard that as damaging anyone's success. Let us say, for example, that twenty dollars of the taxes I pay out of my check each week goes to ensure that a person can have decent meals for a few days. I'm okay with that. I've been hungry. It

[themachinestops]

1. WIC isn't a charity, it's a government program.
2. Charities and government programs that help children will eventually help us all. Children do grow up.
3. You're a moron.

[lutramania]

Agreed on all counts.

[coanteen]

No they don't. They never become productive members of society but remain attached forever to OP's wallet.

[dncingmalkavian]

Lulz!

[umlautless]

Isn't WIC a government program, a type of "food stamps"? In any event, I get behind nutrition programs, because well-fed kids (fed reasonably nutritious foods) tend to do better in school, and education is the best way to break a cycle of poverty. The women/infants aspect - women who get proper nutrition when pregnant have healthier babies; and healthy babies require less social services.

[dncingmalkavian]

Yes, WIC is specifically for expectant or current mothers. I think you can only receive WIC up until the child is a certain age (3, 5, I don't remember) but my mother got it for awhile, and it helped a lot. If there's one thing I can say about my upbringing, it's that I never went hungry, unclothed, and I was never homeless - part of that was due to charity or government assistance, such as Section 8.

[umlautless]

Yeah - we were on it, too, but I didn't notice where the poster lived, and thought maybe it was another country that didn't have WIC as a government program, and a group co-opted the name...

[dncingmalkavian]

Everyone subsidizes other people's kids to a certain degree, as we pay taxes to support things like schools, welfare programs, etc. In a certain light I am okay with this, as I'm not a fan of seeing other people suffer without food, education, housing, and so forth. Sure, I dislike kids. Do I want them to suffer because of their parents misjudgments? No

[dust_mote]

What about when the least fortunate citizen is not a child, or a mother? I mean obviously it's not a child. Personally I don't see helping children carte blanche as as good of an investment as helping someone who's already known to be valuable and simply in a tight spot in life. Not saying we can't help children Just To Be Nice, but there are a lot of people who need help in the world, not just kids.

[dncingmalkavian]

Sure, there are. I always need help! But then, I have the skills and means to help myself, whereas a child doesn't. I get food stamps from my state of residence; but if it were to come down to me getting them and a child getting them, the kid can eat; I can go to a soup kitchen if I run out of food, or contact friends, or just trade work with someone in exchange for a meal. A kid can't do that.

I disagree with it not being a good investment. An investment in any person is an investment in humanity, and I simply can't overlook that.

[dust_mote]

But if I help you it's far more likely that you'll help me in the future, since you have all those skills and means. A child I can't tell if they're going to become a criminal, or worse a politician! Any help that I give them is not likely to be reciprocated much, if at all. Yes it's an investment to help children, but it's not always a good investment, and it's not always the best place to be investing. Personally I help people who are my friends, whether they happen to be kids or not. Other people might have other ways to determine the worthiness of a person to receive your limited help.

Wouldn't it be great if we could teach kids how to go to a soup kitchen, or contact friends, or how to trade work with someone in exchange for a meal? Kids can do that if you teach them, and I think that teaching a man to fish has a far greater return than just giving them a fish.

[spaekle]

I don't see how things like March of Dimes or Make a Wish(???) are anti-childfree. I also fail to see how the existence of organizations working to bring aid to a demographic that you are not in any way related to threatens your way of life.

The tax issue is unfortunate. I'd rather not have my taxes go to public schools or churches, but I guess that's just tough shit. :\

[dncingmalkavian]

Taxes go to churches?! This is news to me - I thought that was completely against the law, per separation of church and state.

I'm for it going to schools, however - I plan to start a collaborative arts school someday, and I don't want to be employing a bunch of undereducated morons. Kids being educated actually helps all of us, although of course our school system needs serious reform (but that's a whole other storybook).

[spaekle]

I thought maybe some went to churches, but now I'm not so sure :v;. I may have been confusing that with the tax breaks they get. I wouldn't be surprised if they did though, since separation of church and state is a fucking joke in this country.

[dust_mote]

Taxes do go to churches. That's what they called "Faith Based Initiatives." Sure it's completely against the law, but taxes do go to churches. And in fact, since churches don't pay property tax, property tax itself goes to subsidize churches.

Also for the record I loved March of Dimes to pieces, until they cured Polio. After that they just turned into a generic "save as many sick babies as possible" charity, and I don't really know why they even exist anymore.