Baby machine rabbit-like brood mares
Posted on February 4, 2011
I just spotted this story in today’s Daily Express:
The “Baby Machine” mothers who cost you £1m each year
According to the Express: “New figures show an increasing number of “baby-machine mums” are breeding huge families to get bigger and bigger state handouts.” The article goes on to detail examples of the large numbers of children some families are ‘choosing’ to have.
Now obviously this being the Express it’s not so much that some families are opting for 10 or more children that’s the problem, it’s the fact that some of those families are eligible for state benefits.
And their solution?
Stop giving them ‘handouts’ of course.
The Express doesn’t actually say it quite that explicitly though. What the ‘journalist’, Mark Reynolds, does instead is provide sound bites from some of those who do advocate restricting benefits as a solution to the ‘problem’ of families spawning passels of children:
But last night critics argued that the benefits system was acting as an incentive for some to have more children. Matthew Sinclair, director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “These statistics are shocking and show the need for urgent welfare reform.
“It is unfair for taxpayers to be asked to support people who have large numbers of children and no intention of providing for them.
“This is an extremely difficult area to take action in without making children pay for the irresponsibility of their parents.
“But it is important to recognise the injustice of expecting that taxpayers struggling to put food on the table for their own children should have to pay huge amounts in benefits to people who have a large number of children and make no attempt to support themselves or their offspring…..”
…..Simon Ross, chief executive of the Optimum Population Trust, which seeks to limit numbers in the UK, added: “We believe child benefit and family tax credit should be limited to the first two children.
“People should choose to have no more than two children. Those who have more are creating an environmental burden for the future.”
I particularly enjoyed this bit: “But those who air their views on the issue have sometimes found themselves in hot water with the politically correct brigade.
Former Tory chairman Howard Flight was forced to apologise after recently suggesting: “Middle classes are discouraged from breeding because it’s expensive. But for those on benefits, there is every incentive. That’s not sensible.”
Damn that ‘politically correct brigade‘ that tries to stop the Express and its ilk stereotyping lazy feckless sponging breeders! And damn those bloody pc gaawn mad lefties who think stopping peoples’ benefits and forcing even more children into poverty is a pretty shitty way for society to behave towards its young.
Apart from the obnoxious display of classism in that piece though, what I was really struck by was the misogyny, in both the article and in the comments that follow it. Papers like the Express don’t have an issue with nice middle class women getting pregnant, in fact I’m guessing that much like the Daily Mail they believe that that’s the natural order of things and something to be celebrated. But once the underclass starts ‘breeding’ the world’s coming to a fucking end or something. Suddenly women aren’t women, they’re “baby machines”, “rabbit-like”, and “brood mares.” And as for immigrants:
“It is time to limit benefits to two children, but I doubt if this government has the guts to do this. No wonder the hospitals are full of migrants having babies, I am sure they cannot believe how much money they receive.”
Froths one commenter. While someone logged in as Simple Answer (he got the first bit right anyway) says:
“Limit benefits to a normal sized native Brit family. This would also rule out the rabbit like immigrants.”
And how about these charming comments:
“Sterilse these women – but get the feckless males who inseminated them as well. These men should be paying for their pleasure, not the taxpayer.”
“These brood Mares are more dangerous to our society than Baroness Wasi’s peaceful Muslims, even the celibate Pope is sanctioning birth control ,these feckless animals should be compulsory spayed .”
“Those on benefits having large numbers of children are basically too stupid to have kids.
It should become compulsory to sterilize a woman who is that stupid.”“Why does not the state sterilise the women for the sake of the children concerned and please dont give me any crap about Human Rights etc etc etc. There is the issue of the Pathetic Human Rights of the kids? Definitely family allowance should be stopped after the first 2. Are all these women British???????”
Are they?? Well, are they??
Ohhhh SO balanced. Really enjoyed the piece (YOUR piece, NOT the Daily Express’s piece!)
Legally calling women misogynistic degrading names is not ‘hate speech’ because only homophobia and promotion of racism are ‘hate speech.’ So once again women do not have the right of redress whenever men decide to hurl degrading sexualised insults at them. But men do have the right of redress when they are subjected to racist and/or homophobic taunts. Then too men have the right to subject any woman to misogynistic insults because remember it is just ‘men’s humour or banter’ as defined by men since they are rarely subjected to degrading insults because they happen to be male not female. But women – well we are animals are we not according to some of those male commentators. Says a lot what men really think of women and it is not good neither is it ‘banter!’
Selective eugenics again because only certain women are considered ‘fit to reproduce men’s children.’ I say ‘men’s children’ because women supposedly have no role other than to be the vessel carrying the man’s child (sic) since the male is always the one who creates his child. Note too women who are perceived as ‘middle class’ are awarded honorary entry only because of their father’s/husband’s/male partner’s social position. Then there is the fact middle class women do not have children because once again they carry the man’s child since only men create a child. (Yes I know it is a patriarchal myth but men have claimed for centuries that they alone are the ones who reproduce a child and that claim shows no sign of ending).
The Daily Express like its brother the Daily Male enjoys creating mythical articles because this always keeps the focus off what the millionaire Tories and their minions the Lib/Dems are doing in respect of destroying vital public services. The golden rule is to always seek out scapegoats who are not able to refute such misogynistic and xenophobic hatred. Which is why women who are poor and disadvantaged are scapegoated. So too are women and men who irrespective of the fact they are born in the UK are still viewed by many bigots as ‘migrants abusing the benefit system. ‘
After all someone has to be blamed and we mustn’t hold white powerful men in suits accountable must we?
The biggest payout of benefits are to those women whose partners have abondoned them with children. Whether married or not. The taxpayer will pay for the solicitor (which the government is now stopping from September and is available only in instances of domestic violence within marriage), the housing benefit, the tax credits, child benefit. You get the drift…
Anything else ‘are all these women British?’ is just a red herring and an ostrich approach to the male entitlement of demanding a union with sex (sticking in his dick) to which YOU the taxpayer are contributing to. They care not for the children except when it comes to paying out money. Then they’ll either fight for residency or short pay the ‘bitch’ left looking after them.
Het Male Entitlement is costing the tax payer money.
Very skewed statistics in that story, and cobbled together.
“MOTHERS who choose to give birth to more than 10 children are costing the British taxpayer around £1million a year in child benefits, it was revealed yesterday.”
Infers that if ‘a’ mother gives birth to 10 children, she is eligible to £1m pa.
“The newly published statistics for 2009, the latest year available, recorded some 137 births to women who already had 10 children.”
Infers that all 137 are on benefits (which may or may not be the case). If 137 (families, or thereabouts) are “The group was eligible jointly to be raking in £22,000 a week – around £1.2million a year – in benefits” then that works out to be c£160 per week per family mentioned, which would not be correct, so the actual number of 10+ families claiming the £22,000 must be significantly less than 137. Can’t have it both ways; either it is a wide-spread problem like the Express is making out, or just a small number of 10+ families ‘working the benefit system’.
“Two of the mothers…”
“Another had her 17th”
“four of the mothers”
Infers that there has been some kind of mass parthenogenesis outbreak(!)
Some of these 10+ families would probably have the father living in situ, but nary a mention of them. For those mothers that are not living with the father, why is the Express not calling for these males to be held accountable for more child support?
If they are looking to track down the fathers for child support, I would look at this dude firstly…
As I understand it, in the US after 2 kids you’re on your own – no additional benefits. Before this ruling was put into effect many women receiving welfare did have additional kids in order to increase their welfare benefits – unmarried women who would go out and use a different man each time to get pregnant. These huge “families” of half-brothers and sisters would then grow up to “multiply and divide” and thus exponentially increase the burden upon the taxpayers. Thankfully this issue was addressed, but perhaps only partially solved.
On the subject of hate speech and hate crimes: These rules only apply to the white establishment. If you’re not a member of that group don’t worry, because you can say and do what you want, and no one will ever accuse you of committing those offenses. The rules don’t apply to you.
Optimum Population Trust …Johnny Porrit and his merry band of Green fascists …..i hope this points out to people how right wing , conservative and backward looking a lot of green thinking is …